Problem Formulation:projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/52659837/Learning... · Web viewIn contrast, dynamic capabilities developed in ‘high-velocity’ markets, characterized as “ones

1

LEARNING ROUTINES IN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND INNOVATION

AN EXPLANTORY CASE STUDY ON GLOBAL WIND POWER

ByAlvin Hernandez

Supervised by Björn Johnson

http://mike.aau.dk/

2

Abstract

This thesis investigates the role of learning routines on the development of process and product/service

innovations at Global Wind Power, a Danish Wind Farm Development company. It does so by

considering three complementary perspectives that guide the analysis. The first is through the use of a

multi-definitional framework on routines that is intended to operationalize the routine concept while

reducing conceptual ambiguity through the identification of which routine definition is being evoked in

the analysis. The second perspective, views the innovation process as consisting of the routines in the

organization that guide the search, selection, implementation, and capture of innovative opportunities

and threats. The third and final perspective distinguishes between two modes of innovation based on

Science or Science-like understanding (STI mode) and an experienced based mode of learning based on

‘learning by doing’, ‘using’ and ‘interacting’(DUI mode). Through an Explanatory Case Study that

aims at analytical generalization in connection to theory verification and theory generation,

propositions derived from the literature pertaining to why the combinations of DUI & STI modes of

learning are tested and propositions for future research are developed. The thesis also presents

suggestions for Global Wind Power to improve their innovative capabilities through the consideration

of various learning routines identified.

3

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Björn Johnson. I have greatly benefited

from your relentless guidance, sage advice, and encouragement along the way. Big thanks goes to

Bram Timmerman who has provided comments on previous drafts. I would also like to thank the staff

at Global Wind Power for taking part in the study and giving me insight into your work life. In

particular, I would like to thank Pernille Aakjær Andersen who has shown great commitment to the

project; always ensuring that I had all the available resources of the organization at my disposal.

Lastly, I would like to thank the participants in the interviews whom have provided me with a window

into the organizational processes, challenges, and achievements (displayed alphabetically):

Hanne Andersen

Pernille Aakjær Andersen

and Michael Nymann.

.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................71.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION..................................................................................................................................................81.1 THESIS STRUCTURE.........................................................................................................................................................10

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................................11LITERATURE REVIEW PART I................................................................................................................................................122.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................122.1 COMMON USES AND DEFINITIONS FOR THE TERM ‘ORGANIZATIONAL ROUTINE’...........................................................12

2.1.1 Routines as Organizational Rules..........................................................................................................................132.1.2 Routines as Behaviour............................................................................................................................................132.1.3 Routines as ‘Generative Systems’..........................................................................................................................142.1.4 Routines as Organizational Dispositions or Capacities........................................................................................15

2.2 WHEN DO AUTHORS USE THE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF ROUTINES?...........................................................................162.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF ROUTINES....................................................................................................................................17

2.3.1 Routines as a source of organizational Memory: The ambidextrous aspects of knowledge in routines................172.3.2 Routines are Triggered, Context Specific, and Automatic.....................................................................................202.3.3. Routines are Persistent..........................................................................................................................................212.3.4 Routines are Path Dependent.................................................................................................................................22

2.4 STABILITY AND CHANGE IN ROUTINES...........................................................................................................................232.4.1 Hierarchical nature of Routines.............................................................................................................................232.4.2 Change of Routines through Dynamic Capabilities and ‘Ad Hoc Problem-Solving’............................................24

2.5 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................................................26LITERATURE REVIEW PART II...............................................................................................................................................272.6 INTRO..............................................................................................................................................................................272.7 LEARNING ECONOMY.....................................................................................................................................................272.8 ROUTINES IN THE INNOVATION PROCESS.......................................................................................................................272.9 MODES OF LEARNING AND INNOVATION: DUI AND STI................................................................................................30

2.9.1 Taxonomy of Knowledge:.......................................................................................................................................322.9.2 Innovating Routines................................................................................................................................................34

2.10 PROPOSITIONS...............................................................................................................................................................36

3. METHODS.........................................................................................................................................383.1 RESEARCH TYPE.............................................................................................................................................................393.2 UNIT OF ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................................................393.3 CASE STUDY TYPE & DESIGN........................................................................................................................................40

3.3.1 Case Study Type.....................................................................................................................................................413.3.2 Single vs. Multiple-Case Design.............................................................................................................................413.3.3 Unit of Analysis: holistic vs. embedded..................................................................................................................43

3.4 DATA SOURCES...............................................................................................................................................................443.4.1 Surveys....................................................................................................................................................................443.4.2 Semi-Structured Interviews....................................................................................................................................45

4. CASE STUDY EVIDENCE..............................................................................................................474.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................484.2 GWP VALUE CHAIN.......................................................................................................................................................48

4.2.1 Greenfield Development.........................................................................................................................................494.2.2 Turnkey Phase of Development..............................................................................................................................524.2.3 Technical & Comercial Management....................................................................................................................53

4.3 GWP PRE-HISTORY.........................................................................................................................................................544.3.1 DUI modes of learning as access to know-what and know-how............................................................................54

5

4.3.2 Competency building through ‘Learning By Doing’..............................................................................................564.3.3 From learning habits to learning routines: the origin of ‘ProPartner’.................................................................57

4.4 THE BEGINNING OF GLOBAL WIND POWER...................................................................................................................614.5 LEARNING BY INTERACTING WITH INVESTORS LEADS TO THE EMERGENCE OF TCM....................................................61

4.5.1 The introduction of TCM accelerates demand, forcing GWP to expand capabilities into Turnkey to meet demand pressures..........................................................................................................................................................................63

4.6 KNOW-WHO IS COMBINED WITH KNOW-WHY IN MARKET SELECTION.........................................................................654.7 EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS MODEL: NEW CUSTOMERS AND ACQUISITION BRING ABOUT NEW COMPETENCIES.......674.8 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................................................68

5. CASE SUVEY EVIDENCE..............................................................................................................715.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................72

5.1.2 Testing Discretionary Learning.............................................................................................................................735.1.3 Testing employee interactions at the cross functional and cross departmental levels...........................................745.1.4 Discretionary Learning and Cross-functional learning across country units.......................................................755.1.5 Systems for collecting proposals............................................................................................................................775.1.6 Employee’s Input During Significant Organizational Changes.............................................................................785.1.7 Integration of Functions and Softened Demarcations............................................................................................805.1.8 Interacting with External Sources..........................................................................................................................80

5.2 ROLE OF DUI AND STI ROUTINES IN SEARCH................................................................................................................845.2.1 Internal Search.......................................................................................................................................................845.2.2 External Search......................................................................................................................................................84

5.3 ROLE OF DUI AND STI ROUTINES IN SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION.....................................................................855.4 ROLE OF DUI AND STI ROUTINES IN CAPTURE..............................................................................................................86

6. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................876.1 KEY THEORETICAL FINDINGS.........................................................................................................................................87

6.1.1 Theory Verification.................................................................................................................................................886.1.2 Generation of Propositions....................................................................................................................................89

6.2 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS AND FINDINGS..................................................................................................................906.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH...........................................................................................................................91

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................92

APPENDIX A: EMP SURVEY............................................................................................................97

APPENDIX B: Mgmt Survey.............................................................................................................107

6

FIGURES, TABLES, AND BOXES

Figure 1: Ostensive, Performative, and Artifact (OPA) Framework.......................................................15Figure 2: Simple Model of the Innovation Process.................................................................................28Figure 3: Dimensions of the Case Study Research Design.....................................................................43Figure 4: Global Wind Power Value Chain............................................................................................48Figure 5: Greenfield Development Phase 1 (GFD-1)..............................................................................50Figure 6: Project Design and Processing by the Authorities (GFD-2):...................................................52Figure 7: Global Wind Power Timeline..................................................................................................54Figure 8: ProPartner Concept...............................................................................................................................58

Table 1: DUI & STI Routines..................................................................................................................34Table 2: DUI & STI Routines..................................................................................................................72Table 3: Questions for Testing Discretionary Learning..........................................................................73Table 4: Questions Testing Cross-Funtional/Departmental Learning.....................................................74Table 5: Questions Testing ‘Systems for Collecting Proposals’.............................................................77Table 6: Employee Initiative for Generating Proposals...........................................................................78Table 7: Organizational Changes.............................................................................................................78Table 8: Employee Involvement in Significant Organizational Changes................................................79Table 9: Effect of Organizational Changes on Employee Tasks.............................................................80Table 10: Cooperation with External Sources of Knowledge................................................................................81

Box 1: ProPartner – Learning Routine as ‘Rules of Thumb’...................................................................59Box 2: Emergence and Development of TCM.........................................................................................62Box 3: Adapting through Formal Rules in Turnkey Development..........................................................64

7

1. INTRODUCTION

What distinguishes between organizations that seem to consistently innovate from those that innovate

rarely or not at all? One of the great promises of the organizational routines concept, as put forth by

Nelson & Winter (1982), was its proposed ability to understand how organizations differ (nelson,

1991), how they change, and how differences in the organizations repertoire of routines have

implications in the capabilities to respond to unpredictable environments and innovate. Understanding

how routines change and which routines allow organizations to be more innovative is thus an important

endeavour.

The literature on organizational routines; however, has been plagued with definitional

ambiguities. One implication is that much of the work surrounding organizational routines has been

around clarifying the concept rather than applying routines as unit of analysis in empirical work

(Becker, 2004). Advancing empirical work has thus been an area where a call has been made. A

second implication is that the little empirical work that has been performed utilizes differing

conceptions of what a routine is, making it difficult to compare across research programs.

While, no common definition of routine exists, the different conceptions of routines tend to

center around four different definitions. The first definition views routines from a motivational

perspective as rules, structures, recipes, and techniques that channel behaviour. The second sees

routines as repetitive behaviour itself or as ‘interaction’ patterns. The third view focuses on the role of

routines as coordinating mechanisms. According to this view, routines are defined as organizational

dispositions or capacities to produce repetitive behaviour through the sequential triggering of

habits/skills. The fourth and final definition perceives routines as a ‘generative system’ consisting of

both a cognitive and behavioural dimension.

What is notable about the first three is that they seem to be referring to different aspects.

According to Becker (2008), “the three concepts cannot clearly be reduced to one another. Rules are

not behaviour, behaviour is not the same as rules, and potential behaviour is not the same as actual

behaviour, and so on (p. 4).” In addition, an observation can be made when authors use the different

definitions of routines. It is often the case, when referring to the reproduction of routines that any of the

8 1. INTRODUCTION

first three definitions suffices as a unit of reselection. However, when authors are describing the

change of routines multiple concepts are evoked under the same heading, making the concept appear

amorphous.

According to Becker (2008) a possible way forward is for authors to be more precise about the

manner in which they use the term routine. Aligning their usage of the term, according to the

definitions described above, could aid in reducing ambiguities. Another advantage is that the separate

definitions point naturally to the question on how rules, disposition, and behaviours are related.

Unlocking such interrelations could enhance the agenda on understanding how organizational routines

are reproduced and changed.

Based on the aforementioned points, this thesis will investigate the role of learning and

innovating routines in innovation through a case study on Global Wind Power (GWP).

Global Wind Power, a wind farm development company, entered the market initially as a sales and

promotion company, aiding third party developers in the sales of global wind projects to Danish private

investors. Today, GWP has greatly expanded their product/service offerings across the full wind farm

development value chain. This includes product/services in:

i. Greenfield Development

ii. Turnkey

iii. And in Technical & Commercial Management

In addition, to these product/services innovations that have developed over time, there have also been

internal process innovations. The most notable of which is the emergence of the ProPartner concept

and the Business Development Department, whose role in the organization is both to support the

selection of product markets and the continuous improvement of internal and external processes.

1.1 Problem FormulationIn this context the main questions posed here are:

Main Questions:

9 1. INTRODUCTION

How did learning and innovating routines influence the development of product, service, and

process innovations at GWP?

Which routines could be adopted at GWP that would allow the organization to increase their

innovative capabilities?

In order to answer these broad questions identifying which routines are involved in innovative activities

is necessary. According to Pavitt (2002) the ‘innovating routines’ in an organization are those that aid

the organization in searching for new ideas internally and externally to the firm, selecting from a set of

possible ideas those that further the firm’s business objectives, implementing such ideas into reality,

and capturing the benefit of the innovation by supporting the adoption, diffusion, and continuous

learning. While the simple innovation process perspective above points to routines in a functional

manner, it does little to explain heterogeneous differences in firm-level innovativeness.

A second perspective on the role of routines in innovation has the potential to gap this

understanding. Jensen et. al. (2004; 2007) distinguishes between two modes of learning. The first

mode, known as the DUI mode of learning, sees innovation as an outcome of experience. The second

mode, known as the STI mode of learning, perceives innovation as an outcome of Science,

Technology, and Innovation policies in the firm. The two modes of learning were tested in the 2001

DISKO survey. Based on the results, firms that innovated through either the DUI or STI mode were

two times more likely to develop product/service innovations than non-learning firms which displayed

neither DUI nor STI learning characteristics. Moreover, the most salient result derived from the survey

was that firms that combined both DUI and STI modes of learning were the most innovative, displaying

five times the greater likeliness to produce product/service innovations than non-learners.

While the results of the DISKO survey were able to identify that the combination of both modes

of learning allow for greater innovativeness, a question that remains is

Sub-question 1: Why does the combination of DUI and STI modes of learning enhance

innovativeness?

More in particular

10 1. INTRODUCTION

Sub-question 2: How does the combination of DUI and STI modes of learning influence the innovation

process involving search, selection, implementation, and capture?

1.1 Thesis Structure

In order to investigate the proposed research questions an explanatory case study on Global Wind

Power will be performed. The thesis will be presented as followed. Section 2 will present the

background literature for the thesis. The literature review is broken down into two parts. Part I outlines

the theory pertaining to organizational routines. In particular, it will identify the different definitions of

routines, the role of such definitions in describing organizational change, the characteristics of routines,

and the role of organizational routines in supporting stability and change in firms. This will lead to Part

II of the literature review. Part II focuses on explicating what is meant by learning/innovating routines

and the role of such routines in the learning economy. This will be directly followed by a development

of the literature based propositions that can further direct the analysis of the case. Section 3 will present

the methods used. In particular it will describe the connection between the research questions with the

type of research strategy, the methods pursued, the manner in which data is collected and evaluated,

and the criteria for interpreting the findings. Section 4 presents the empirical case evidence and

analysis. It begins with a description of Global Wind Power’s current capabilities, which are identified

as innovative milestones for the organization. What follows is a longitudinal look at the development

and continuation of such innovations in the history of GWP as a function of the learning/innovating

routines identified. Section 5 shifts its focus on presenting the empirical evidence cross-sectionally, by

identifying which learning routines are distributed across the organization as well as identifying areas

in which GWP can improve its innovative capabilities. Section 6 concludes by presenting the major

findings, managerial implications, limitations of the research, , and suggestions for further research.

11 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The following section will draw connections between organizational routines, organizational learning,

and innovation. This will be presented in two parts. The first part will present what is meant by

organizational routines in the literature and describe their characteristics. The second will describe

the role of routine in the learning economy and its role in innovation. Lastly, I will elaborate further

what the connection between routines and innovation are by presenting the routines involved in

innovation and what is meant by learning and innovating routines.


Literature Review Part I

2.0 Introduction

The concept of organizational routines has received great attention since Nelson & Winter’s (1982)

Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Organizational Routines were viewed as all the ‘know-how

to do’s’ developed in the organization, such as the know-how involved in designing an automobile,

providing best in class logistics, or manufacturing computers, to name a few examples. Although,

similar concepts relating to routines had existed previously in the literature; such as in the concept of

‘habits’ in the old institution economics tradition or standard operating procedures in Behavioural

Economics, the concept of routines a la Nelson & Winter, gave greater attention to its role as the unit of

analysis in an evolutionary explanation on how organizations behave, change, and innovate. Nelson

&Winter write:

“And that, of course, is the heart of our theoretical proposal: the behavior of firms can be

explained by the routines that they employ. Knowledge of the routines is the heart of

understanding behavior. Modeling the firm means modeling the routines and how they change

over time” (Nelson and Winter, 1982: p 128).

Since then, the take up of the organizational routines concept by scholars has been immense, yet

despite or because of the popularity of the concept; progress towards conceptual clarity has been slow

(Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994; Cohen et.al., 1996). As such, no unified definition of the routine concept

exists (Becker, 2001; 2004). Nevertheless, in order to pave the way for a discussion on ‘innovating

routines’ featured in the second part of the literature review it is first necessary to ground the

understanding of what organizational routines are generally in the literature.

2.1 Common uses and definitions for the term ‘organizational routine’


The differing views of the concept of routines beckon the following question: When authors

refer to the term ‘organizational routine’ what are they referring to? There are at least four distinct

definitions of routines. These include routines seen as1:

i. organizational rules

ii. behavioural patterns

iii. dispositions or tendencies

iv. or as generative structures

2.1.1 Routines as Organizational Rules

Some of the early conceptions of routines can be found in the Carnegie School’s treatment of

organizational behaviour that viewed firms as following a set of rule-based performance programs and

standard operating procedures. March & Simon (1958) views performance programs as largely

involving “highly complex and organized sets of responses” to environmental cues (p.141).

Performance programs are routinized

“to the degree that choice has been simplified by the development of a fixed response to

defined stimuli. If search has been eliminated, but a choice remains in the form of a clearly

defined and systematic computing routine, we will say that the activities are routinized (March

and Simon, 1958 p. 142).”

The quote above, points to two characteristics of routinized performance programs: i. they define

programs as rule following i.e. as fixed responses to defined stimuli and ii. they imply that routines

persist because search has been eliminated.

2.1.2 Routines as Behaviour

Building on these early insights on organizational behaviour, Nelson and Winter (1982) provide a

basis for an evolutionary theory of economic change that explained long-run firm level behaviour 1? The list definitions of routines provided below provides an expanded list from it’s original in Becker (2004)


within a dynamic environment. As a unit of analysis, Nelson and Winter transposed Cyert and March’s

concept of standard operating procedures (Cyert & Marsh, 1963) within an evolutionary context

terming it as an organizational routine (Pierce, Boerner, & Teece, 2002); while giving the term a more

technical meaning as a holder of organizational memory, of the tacit knowledge sort, and as a

replicating unit of selection and recombination; likened to ‘genes’ in evolutionary biology. However,

in contrast to defining routines as the ‘rules’ of the organization as largely described under the

Carnegie School, Nelson and Winter defined routines as “all regular and predictable behaviour patterns

of a firm, (my italics)” thus shifting the conception of routines from being rule-like to behavioural. The

transition was meant to place greater emphasis on the idea that tacit knowledge, which is integral in

operating a routine, was more suitably defined as behaviour rather than as organizational rules.

However, aligning routines with the definition of behaviour has proven quite confusing for

some authors (see Cohen et. al., 1996; Hodgson & Knudsen, 2003a; Hodgson & Knudsen, 2003b;

Hodgson, 2008, Feldman & Pentland, 2003), largely because some of the concepts Nelson & Winter

illustrate seem to refer more to a general rule-like dimension or even a representational dimension of

behaviour rather than to behaviour itself (i.e. actual performances). For example, Nelson & Winter

refer to the routine as a ‘target’ and, in a particular case, as a source of imitation by a competing firm.

It is noted that in this scenario that the imitator does not have access to the tacit knowledge. The

question can then be asked then what is being imitated or transferred? Some would argue that what is

transferred would be the routine as a representational or rule rather than behaviour per se. This has led

to somewhat of a conceptual divide in the literature under the headings Cognitive Dimension, referring

to the underlying rule-like structure in organizations, and the Behavioral Dimension referring to

behaviour and to great extent the tacit knowledge involved in organizational capabilities.

2.1.3 Routines as ‘Generative Systems’

The multiplicity of definitions has led some authors to consider combining the two dimensions, thus

viewing routines as a ‘generative system,’ rather than defining the routine on either level. One

framework in such a direction was proposed by Feldman & Pentland (2003). As seen in figure 1, the

ostensive refers to the cognitive dimension and performative refers to the behavioural dimension.

Figure 1: Ostensive, Performative, and Artifact (OPA) Framework


1

Source: Feldman & Pentland (2003)

The ostensive aspect is viewed as the routine in abstract, the cognitive regularities and expectations that

enable “participant to guide, account for and refer to specific performances of a routine.” In addition,

the ostensive aspect consists of the subjective interpretation of individuals. According to the authors,

this makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly what the ostensive aspects are as a whole since it is a

collection of partial and overlapping subjective perspectives. The performative aspect consists of

“actual performances by specific people, at specific times, in specific places (Feldman & Pentland,

2003 p. 94).” The two aspects are considered mutually constitutive and form the organizational

routine.

These two aspects of the organizational routine may also be enabled or constrained by various

artefacts. Artefacts are the physical manifestations of the routine. According to the authors, the

artefacts serve as empirical representation or indicators of either the ostensive or performative aspects.

Artefacts for the ostensive aspect maybe in the form of written rules and standard operating procedures

(codified form) while artefacts for the performative aspect may consist of transaction histories or

databases that track workflow.

2.1.4 Routines as Organizational Dispositions or Capacities

Lastly, a recent perspective put forth by Geoffrey Hodgson and Thorbjørn Knudsen defines

organizational routines as an acquired disposition or capacity to express a particular behaviour or

thought (Hodgson & Knudsen, 2003a; Hodgson & Knudsen, 2003b; Hodgson & Knudsen, 2004;

Hodgson, 2008; Knudsen, 2008). This view stems from the conception of ‘habits’ in the old

Organizational Routines

Ostensive Performative

Artifacts


institutional economics tradition of Thorstein Veblen and the Pragmatist Philosophy of Charles Sanders

Pierce and John Dewey (Hodgson, 2008). According to the authors, dispositions are considered to be a

subset of rules and therefore follow an ‘if-then’ structure. However, a distinguishing feature of the

disposition’s perspective in relation to rules seen from the Carnegie School is that the rules are

internalized or embodied more specifically in the procedural knowledge of the individual and

embedded within an organizational routine. For example it is not enough for a person to know the

speed limits when on the Danish main roads in order to follow them, in order to be a disposition

keeping the speed limits must be an automatic practice. It is only when rules are adopted and become

a part of procedural knowledge are they considered to be a disposition. In addition, the concept of

dispositions put forth by Hodgson and Knudsen is distinguished from behaviour. So unlike the view

that procedural or tacit knowledge resides at the behavioural level (i.e. Nelson & Winter def of routines

as behaviour) Hodgson and Knudsen consider the routines (as dispositions) distinct from the behaviour

it produces. According to Hodgson (2008)

“Routines (like genes) cannot be both generative structures and outcomes of such structures.

This point is not about the appropriateness or otherwise of biological analogies but about the

clear meanings of words and their ontological references…it cannot usefully denote both

potentiality and actuality. It has to denote one or the other, but not both (p 19).”

Accordingly, Hodgson (2008) defines routines at the level of potentiality as an “organizational

disposition to energize conditional patterns of behaviour within an organized group of individuals

involving sequential responses to cues (p 33.)”

2.2 When do authors use the different definitions of routines?

The various authors seem to be using the definitions differently depending on whether they are

focusing on the stability, reproduction, or change of routines. Even amongst the same authors, for

example Nelson and Winter (1982), they tend to incorporate multiple definitions into their discussion

of routines depending on what their focus of analysis. When speaking of the stability of routines it is

often the case that using any of the three definitions i.e. stable rules, behaviour, or dispositions seem to


suffice; however when authors are trying to explain how routines change, mutate, or are transferred

there is a tendency to utilize multiple concepts under the same heading when describing the

transformation.

Since the purpose of this thesis is to investigate the role of innovating routines on innovation

and also considering that innovation involves in itself some form of change, a multiple view utilizing

all concepts will be adopted here in order to operationalize the routine concept to capture the

transformation; while reducing conceptual ambiguity by identifying which definition of the routine

concept comes into play during the analysis of the case.

2.3 Characteristics of Routines

While little agreement can be found on how a routine should be defined there is however substantial

agreement on the characteristics attributed to organizational routines. These include:

i. the routines as a Source of Organizational Memory,

ii. Context Dependency and Automaticity.

iii. Persistence

iv. Path Dependence

v. Hierarchical Nature

2.3.1 Routines as a source of organizational Memory: The ambidextrous aspects of knowledge in routines

One of the most notable characteristic of organizational routines is its ability to store organizational

knowledge. The outcomes of organizational learning result in the formation of routines that provide

standard ways of conducting organizational activities under learned circumstances (Levitt & March,

1988.) When such circumstances arise in the future, routines are activated. As such routines provide

the organization with a source of organizational memory (Levitt & March,1988). According to Nelson

& Winter(1982) routines are the “locus of operational knowledge in an organization (p. 104).”


Routines consist of two interconnected aspects that allow them to be considered as such. On the one

hand routines are standardized organizational techniques described as ‘recipes,’ ‘technologies (Nelson

& Sampat)’ or ‘standard operating procedures (Cyert & Marsh, 1963),’ that, in conjunction with the

broader social or institutional context, provide a structure that sharply channel behaviour. According

to Nelson (2008) the terms ‘technologies,’ ‘standard operating procedures,’ and recipes are the “steps

involved in a productive technique without specifying how techniques are to be assigned to individuals

and how coordination is accomplished by these individuals (p. 11)2.”

On the other hand, routines are ‘organizational capabilities’ composed of individual habits or

skills involved in an interlocking and reciprocally triggered sequence of events that provide the level of

interpretation, coordination, and codes for action involved in a productive organizational performance

(Nelson & Winter, 1982; Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994; Hodgson, 2008)3.

Routines thus “occupy the crucial nexus between structure and action (Pentland & Reuter, 1994

p. 484),” between the factors shaping organizational behavior; and the capabilities or know-how

required simply to perform them (Nelson, 2008; Nelson & Sampat, 2001,). The knowledge held in the

former is largely articulable, explicit, and in many cases may be codified into descriptive and

formalized procedures, while in the later the knowledge held in the organization is largely tacit,

inarticulate, and automatically executed (Nelson, 2008).

2.3.1.1 Routines as Capabilities

Since ‘routines as capabilities’ are tacit, and cannot be made fully explicit, formalized, or

encoded into other forms of organizational memory such as databases and procedural documents, the

capabilities dimension of routines “constitute the most important form of storage of the organization’s

specific operational knowledge (Nelson & Winter,1982 p. 99).” What underlies the ‘organizational

capabilities’ dimension4 of an organizational routine is the tacit form of knowledge, known as

procedural knowledge5, held by individuals performing in a routine. In order to reduce conceptual

ambiguity in the literature, consensus has more recently emerged that the terms habits or skills should

2 This aspect of the routine aligns with the routine as ‘rules.’ 3 This aspect of the routine aligns with the routine as ‘organizational dispositions’ and ‘capacities’.4 This view of routines is aligned with the routines defined as ‘dispositions’ or ‘capabilities’ to produce repetitive behavior5 Also known as procedural memory


refer to the individual- level while the term routines should be reserved for the group or organizational

level6 (Cohen et al., 1996; Dosi et al., 2000)

One of the most notable uses of the individual-level in An Evolutionary Theory of Economic

Change is in the explanation of how routines are coordinated by organizational members. As stated by

Nelson and Winter (1982):

“What is central to a productive organizational performance is coordination; what is

central to coordination is that individual members, knowing their jobs, correctly interpret and

respond to the messages they receive. The interpretations that members give to messages are

the mechanisms that pick out, from a vast array of possibilities, consistent with the roster of

member repertoires, a collection of individual member performances that actually

constitute a productive performance for the organization as a whole (p.104)”

According to Nelson & Winter(1982) the knowledge required to consistently interpret and respond to

organizational messages is by way of procedural knowledge embodied in habituated behaviour. Habits

have several characteristics due to procedural knowledge that aid in interpreting and responding to

organizational messages:

i. habits are learned and subsequently triggered in a social and physical context,

ii. when a habit is enacted it is done so automatically and without the need for deliberation and

iii. habits provide codes for action.

Habits are learned in a social and physical organizational context either deliberately or semi-

automatically (Zollo & Winter, 2002). In certain problem solving tasks intentionality and deliberation

precede habituation, as formulated under the assumption of bounded rationality. Once an individual

satisfices on a particular solution to a problem that frequently arise, the individual will tend to repeat

the same behaviour (Simon,1955) According to studies in Cognitive Psychology, after a series of

repetition of behaviour in a relatively stable context a habit emerges whereby, the control of behaviour

shifts from cognitive mechanisms, those governing deliberate thinking and problem solving, to an

6 This distinction seems to be more important in describing the routine from the capabilities perspective rather than the routines as recipes perspective. This is primarily due to the dispersed tacit knowledge held by individuals in a collective and coordinated action.


automatic mode stored in procedural memory (Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994; Egidi,1996; Hodgson &

Knudsen, 2004; Wood and Neal, 2007) Habits can also arise through un-deliberate means such as

through tacit or non-conscious learning, ‘learning by doing’(Arrow) and/or imitation(Hodgson).

Further studies in Cognitive Psychology also provide support for the non-deliberate enactment and

attainment of procedural knowledge (Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994). Some of the most notable research

investigates amnesia patients whom have suffered from brain damage on declarative memory areas, the

areas in the brain associated with the storing of explicit knowledge/memory (Cohen, 1984). In these

studies patients retained the ability to acquire and improve in skill-based activities despite being

unaware of what or that they have learned (Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994) suggesting that tacit learning has

taken place.

2.3.2 Routines are Triggered, Context Specific, and Automatic

Once an organizational member has established a repertoire of habits involved in ‘knowing their

job,’ the habit called into action will be contingent upon the particular situation, thus giving habits and

routines the characteristic of being context specific. While a novice employee may have to inquire on

how to carry on in an unfamiliar task or select a course of action, an individual with the appropriate

habits in place are simply able to enact them. This is primarily due to what Nelson & Winter term

‘remembering by doing,’ whereby the particular context provides a trigger for the appropriate habit or

skill called into play. It is by way of the context specificity and the automatic triggering and enactment

of a habit that allows for organizational members to interpret and respond effectively to organizational

messages.

To that end, the same mechanism involved in the automatic interpretation and execution of an

individual skill is also responsible for the automatic execution of multi-person routines, whereby the

habit (or skill) enacted by one member, primes and triggers the skill of another (Nelson & Winter,

1982, Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994; Egidi, 1996). Empirical evidence also supports the interactive

triggering as a mechanism for routinization. Drawing on a series of lab experiments, Cohen &

Bacdayan (1994) demonstrate that after a series of iterations in a mutually incentivized card game, the

two players involved, shifted from intentional modes of behaviour to automatic modes; whereby the

initial action of one player triggered the response of the other, to the extent that coordinated patterns of

action sequences emerged.


The question then could be posed as to whether the knowledge held in a routine is solely

reducible to the tacit knowledge held by individual habits? According to Hodgson (2008), routines are

not solely reducible to individual actions; rather routines exist due to “structurated interactions of

individuals that give rise to emergent properties that (by definition) are not properties of individuals

taken severely.” Hodgson continues by stating “we cannot explain the properties of wholes by focusing

exclusively on the properties of parts, without considering structured causal interactions between those

parts.” Furthermore, as noted by Nelson & Winter (1982) the habits formed and enacted by individuals

in the performance of routine are only meaningful and effective in an organizational context which aid

in structuring the enactment of habits.

2.3.3. Routines are Persistent

Another widely recognized characteristic of routines is that once a routine is established within an

organization they tend to persist. As Levitt & March (1988) note, “routines are independent of the

individual actors who execute them and are capable of surviving considerable turnover in individual

actors (p.320).” Routines are so persistent that they can at times provide solutions to problems that no

longer exist. One notable example cited in the literature derives from Morison (1966) who describes the

persistence of an obsolete routine that was uncovered by a time and motion expert called in to improve

the firing efficiency of the British artillery in WWII. The time and motion expert was particularly

perplexed when observing that during the firing routine a particular delay was being taken by the

soldiers prior to firing their guns. The expert consulted an old Colonel for an explanation for the cause

of the delay. After giving it some thought, the old Colonel explained to the expert that the soldiers

were pausing to ‘hold the horses,’ despite that horses were no longer a part of the artillery.

There exist several explanations in the literature pertaining to the persistence and stability of

organizational routines. The first derives from the Carnegie School noted by March & Simon (1958)

and Cyert & Marsh (1963). According to the authors, as long as no gaps exist between organizational

aspirations and organizational outcomes, standard operating procedures i.e. routines persist.

Organizations only “abandon them under duress (Cyert & Marsh, 1963 p. 102).” The second

explanation is viewed from a transaction cost perspective. Whenever changes are made to the ways of

doing things, this often involves some form of cost be it cognitive, physical, monetary, or searching


cost, etc.. Thus routines in this explanation persist in order to reduce cost. The third and final

explanation as put forth by Nelson & Winter (1982) involves a motivational explanation on the

persistence of routines.

Routines consist of interlocked individual habits, whereby breaking or deviating from the

structurated interaction of individuals would in affect break an organizational ‘truce.’ Similar to the

views represented in the Behavioural Theory of the Firm, organizational members are not assumed to

be committed towards the smooth functioning of the organization, but rather that coordination

problems exist and occur with a level of regularity that is subsumed within routine operations.

Similarly, systems of both control and reward are enacted with a similar level of regularity in order to

keep the routine on track (Nelson & Winter, 1982). While both control and reward systems can in most

cases avoid complete disruption of a routine, they are still limited in motivating organizational

members that have a high degree of behavioural discretion. ‘Routines as truce’ are important in such

situations because they represent legacy solutions to previous intra-organizational conflict, whereby

efforts to cause a change within a routine will disrupt the delicate political balance. As such, changes to

a routine may be met with defensiveness by organizational members affected. According to Nelson

and Winter (1982), “the fear of breaking the truce, is in general, a powerful force tending to hold

organizations on the path of relatively inflexible routine.”

2.3.4 Routines are Path Dependent

The characteristic of routines as being both stabile and persistent also effect the development and

trajectory of new routines in a path dependent manner. According to Levitt & March (1988) the

decisions made in the past affect the decisions made in the future. Organizations learn in an

incremental manner through the use of their existing routines. However, for certain organizations such

as those with long histories and multiple series of turnover in employees, the why’s behind the

existence of a routine are often unknown making it difficult to ascertain its purpose and effectiveness.

As Levitt & March (1988) note:


“The experiential lessons of history are captured by routines in a way that makes the lessons,

but not the history, available to organizational members who have not themselves experienced

the history” (1988, p 320).

A possible negative implication of this, is the development of competency traps, whereby

companies build experience with inferior routines to the extent that such routines become entrenched in

the organization; causing the organization to forego on learning more superior routines in its place. In

order for companies to overcome such competency traps, companies need to be able to develop

routines that allow them to both learn and forget (Lundvall, 1996). The learning routines proposed in

section 2.9 has the potential to address such issue.

2.4 Stability and Change in routines

The characteristics of organizational routines as persistent, stable, and path dependent as

mentioned above, may seem to signal that organizations are incapable of changing due to the stability

and persistence of their routines. However this is not the case. Organizations are able to change based

on their routines. The stability of routines which allow organizations to stay on track also aids

organizations in changing their routines. Stabile routines provide a baseline in which organizations can

compare and learn (Postrel & Rumelt, 1992; Knudsen, 2002). If routines were not routinized to some

degree it would be difficult to ascertain their effectiveness or ineffectiveness in particular situations,

making the selection and change of routines difficult. In addition, stabile routines allow organizations

to better predict the actions taken in the organization, thus allowing for better linkage and coordination

with new or reconfigured routines (Cyert & March, 1963; Nelson & Winter, 1982).

2.4.1 Hierarchical nature of Routines

Another characteristic of routines that aids in understanding how organizational routines change

is the view that routines are in fact comprised of a nested hierarchy of even smaller routines; whereby

learning takes place at several nested levels. According to March & Simon (1958) change in routines

can occur due to problem occurrences at lower level programs (routines) that initiate a response in


higher level programs “whose goal is to revise other programs, either by constructing new ones,

reconstructing existing ones, or simply modifying individual premises in existing programs (March &

Simon, 1958. p. 149).” Building on these insights, Cyert & March (1963) elaborate further on the

adaptation of nested routines. According to the authors, “standard operating procedures change over

time at varying rates. Some rules seem to change frequently; others appear to have been substantially

unchanged for as long as the organization has existed (p. 101).” They define Standard Operating

Procedures as consisting of both General Choice Procedures and Specific Standard Operating

Procedures. While both are considered to be prone to learning and adaptation, the rate of change

differs between the two in that “general procedures would adapt less readily and less rapidly than the

more specific rules p102)” The implications for analysis in studying organizational behaviour is that

longer-run adaptation can be viewed in terms of changes involving slow changing general standard

operating procedures whereby “the result of adaptation rather than the adaptation itself can be studied

(p. 101).”

When approaching the issue regarding the content of organization routine change, both the

Behavioural School and the Evolutionary School are in agreement that routines change through the

combination and recombination of existing routines internal or external to the organization. As March

& Simon (1958) note “An important objective of standardization is to widen as far as possible the

range of situations that can be handled by combination and recombination of a relatively small number

of elementary programs (p. 150).” Also stressing the importance of the combination and recombination

of existing routines, Nelson & Winter (1982) sees the recombination of routines as the novelty in and

of itself, bringing new variation within an economic system. Likewise, this thesis will investigate the

combination between two types of learning routines (DUI & STI) and their role in product/service and

process innovation at Global Wind Power.

2.4.2 Change of Routines through Dynamic Capabilities and ‘Ad Hoc Problem-Solving’

A more recent perspective on routine change derives from the literature on dynamic capabilities (see

Teece & Pisano, 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000 ;Winter 2003). In general, dynamic capabilities are


viewed as high order routines that support the change of lower level routines (Winter, 2003). In this

light, dynamic capabilities support strategic decision making.

Building on what is understood about the hierarchy of routines, Winter (2003) distinguishes

between ‘zero-order capabilities’7 which he sees as routines involved in “how we earn a living now (p.

992)” from first-order capabilities8 which are routines that influence the change of product, process,

scale, or markets. Examples of dynamic capabilities in the literature as pointed out by Eisenhardt &

Martin, (2000) include product development routines (e.g., Clark and Fujimoto, 1991; Dougherty,

1992; Helfat and Raubitschek, 2000), knowledge transfer and recombination routines (e.g., Hansen,

1999; Szulanski, 1996), resource allocation routines, alliance routines that bring new resources into the

firm through external sources (eg., Zollo and Singh, 1998) as well as ‘exit routines’ which eliminate

the use of superfluous routines.

In addition, to the change of routines by dynamic capabilities, Winter (2003) also addresses that

routines may also change through ‘ad hoc problem solving.’ He defines ‘ad hoc’ problem solving as

largely “non repetitive and at least ‘intendedly rationale’.” …appearing “as a response to novel

challenges from the environment or other relatively unpredictable events (pp. 992-993).” Winter

(2003) views ‘ad hoc’ problem solving as both a substitute to dynamic capabilities as well as a

complement. The context in which ‘ad hoc’ problem solving is evoked as a complement is in situations

where the dynamic capability in question is unable to cope with novel problems unaddressed by the

dynamic capability. Alternatively, in other situations, ‘ad hoc’ problem solving may be the only

manner in which routines are being changed and thus are viewed as a substitute for the more routinized

dynamic capabilities. Such situations occur in organizations where the occasions needed for first order

(dynamic capabilities) are seldom. The argument is that the cost burden in maintaining a dynamic

capability that is rarely used may be too great to justify the occasional benefit.9

When considering what types of patterns of dynamic capabilities are applied in relation to the

different degrees of dynamism in markets, Eisenhardt & Martin (2000) argue that based on the

empirical research, firms in moderate dynamic markets where change occurs frequently but along

predictable paths can develop dynamic capabilities that are more complex and relatively stable with

7 Also known as ’operating routines’ in evolutionary theory8 also known as ’search routines’ in organizational and evolutionary theory9 Winter, when constructing his argument, has in mind the example of firms that invest in innovative R&D which are then competed away by firms that conduct only imitative R&D.


linear steps, beginning with analysis and ending with implementation (Helfat, 1997). In contrast,

dynamic capabilities developed in ‘high-velocity’ markets, characterized as “ones in which market

boundaries are blurred, successful business models are unclear, and market players (i.e., buyers,

suppliers, competitors, complementers are ambiguous and shifting,” rely more heavily on simpler

dynamic capabilities and simple routines that “keep managers focused on broadly important issues

without locking them into specific behaviours or the use of past experience that may be inappropriate

given the actions required in a particular situation.

2.5 Summary

Thus far, the literature review has presented the variegated definitions of organizational routines. It has

been shown that routines have been viewed according to four common definitions: organizational rules,

organizational behaviour, generative systems, and organizational dispositions/capacities. The different

definitions employed by various authors highlight complementary yet differing aspects related to

producing organizational stability and change. Since the purpose of this thesis is to identify how

organizational routines influence innovation and considering that innovation in itself represents a

change in the organization, adopting a multi-definitional perspective allows for the operationalization

of the routine concept to capture the transformation while reducing conceptual ambiguity by

identifying which definition of the routine concept comes into play.

In addition, this section presents the common characteristic of routines in the literature.

Routines are characterized as sources of organizational memory, context dependent, persistent, stable,

and path dependent. The characterization of routines as persistent, stable, and path dependent however

should not suggest that routines are in capable of changing. The stability of routines allows for the

ability for organizations to change by providing a baseline in which learning can take place. In

addition, routines are further comprised of a nested hierarchy of even smaller routines; whereby

learning takes place at several nested levels. A concept that builds on the role of higher order routines

in bringing about change in lower level routines is found in the literature on dynamic capabilities. One

of the salient findings in this area of research is the identification of two sources of change in

organizations-organizational change by dynamic capabilities and change by ‘ad hoc’ problem-solving.


Literature Review Part II

2.6 Intro

The first half of the literature review presented the role of routines generally in producing stability and

change. This section will focus on presenting, more specifically, on identifying which routines are

involved in innovative activities.

2.7 Learning Economy

Prior to presenting what is meant here by learning and innovating routines it is important to first

explicate the context in which learning or innovating routines are important for firm survival and

success. According to Lundvall and Johnson (1994), globalization, deregulation, and the rapid diffusion

of Information, Communication, Technology (ICT) has instigated a new economic era of rapid

technical and organizational change known as the ‘Learning Economy.’ The notion of the learning

economy signals a new form of competition that emphasizes the importance of learning and knowledge

across all levels of the economy. In addition, the learning economy is distinguished from the so called

Knowledge Economy. The move from the knowledge economy to the learning economy signals a new

form of competition that is based not only on the greater use of knowledge, but rather that knowledge

in this new era becomes obsolete at greater rates. In order for firms to remain profitable accelerating

the capabilities of the firm to learn becomes paramount. .

2.8 Routines in the Innovation Process

Although routines in general provide organizations with the stability that aids in identifying novelty

and coordinating routine change, organizations are not equally endowed with the ability to induce

change and innovate. There are heterogeneous differences amongst firms, as explained by the specific

routines employed by each. As such, some firms innovate frequently while others innovate only on

occasion or not at all. To understand these differences simply understanding the general characteristics


of routines and how routines change alone will not suffice. A greater understanding of what specific

function routines must perform in order to foster learning and innovation is necessary. As such this

section explores the specific attributes of what could be called ‘innovating routines.’

As noted by Pavitt (2002), “one challenge in evolutionary economics is to give greater

operational content to the notion of ‘innovating routines’ inside the firm (p. 117).” According to Tidd

& Bessant, the innovative routines in the organization are those that involve the innovative processes of

search, selection, implementation, and capture (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 2: Simple Model of the Innovation Process

Source: Tidd & Bessant (2009)

The Search phase refers to the activities involved in identifying potential innovations both internally

and externally to the firm. This entails scanning the environment for market, technological, regulatory,

and other signals within the firm that may shape or provide a source for new innovation. Such signals

are then collected, filtered, and processed in to information so as to be relevant for decision making.

This phase in the innovation process is comparable to the question, ‘how can we find opportunities for

innovation?’

The Selection Phase, which involves the question ‘What are we going to do? And Why?’,

pertains to the routines involved in selecting, from a set of potential innovations, the most attractive


ones to pursue. The selection criterion often involves ascertaining whether the potential innovations

are a ‘good fit’ for the organization in terms of its alignment with strategic objectives and whether the

firm’s current capabilities are sufficiently relevant to act on such potential innovations. A major

challenge in innovation management, is to develop strategies that ensure that the boundaries of the

selection area are not to narrow as to lead the firm into a competency trap and not to wide as to extend

way beyond the competencies of the firm and it’s complementary assets.

The Implementation phase consists of the routines used in translating the ideas into new

products, services, processes, or business models and launching it into an external or internal market. In

essence, this entails the combining of different pieces of knowledge held internally and externally to

the company and weaving them into a new innovation for the firm. The implementation phase can be

further broken down into three stages which include:

i. resourcing knowledge for the idea,

ii. executing the project; while mindful of incremental innovations involved in the diffusion, and

iii. launching and sustaining the innovation.

Resourcing the knowledge for the innovative idea may involve combining new and existing

knowledge located internally or externally to the organization. Such knowledge may be obtained via

internal R&D activities, licenses, buy-ins, external research activities, new or existing technologies,

knowledge transfer as well as employee specific input that allows for further incremental innovation.

An important outcome of this process is that the innovation has transcended beyond a set of ideas to a

more refined and workable concept.

The execution of the project remains as the bulk of the innovation process. Inputs into this stage

of development are a clear strategic concept and some preliminary ideas on how these ideas can be

realized. An output of the process is a developed innovation with prepared internal or external markets

for launch. It is during this stage that the firm undertakes a series of problem solving loops related to

difficulties in both expected and unexpected areas in preparing the innovation for internal or external

markets. A key attribute in the success at this stage is the quality of the project management which


often involves interactions made internally at the multifunctional and multi-departmental levels as well

as interactions with external key knowledge sources.

Successfully launching and sustaining the innovation requires routines designed to develop and

prepare the internal or external markets to accept the innovation. Despite whether the innovation is an

internal process, a new service, or new product offered to the market, the requirement that the

innovation be accepted by the target market or internal users remains integral in completing the

innovation process. For product development a particular focus may be paid on the insights from

external customer markets. Doing so, for example, may better ensure that technologies are created with

the customer’s voice in mind and that technologies do not take precedence over the customer wants and

needs. For process innovation the internal customer markets i.e. the employees are of particular

importance. This is so, since employees have a stake in the proposed changes and need to ‘buy-in’ to

the reasons and prescriptions for change as well as to provide key insights on how particular changes

could be developed and specific problems solved. By stressing the importance of communication,

early involvement, and intervention with employees (via training) can not only aid in the overall

effectiveness of the proposed innovation but also minimizes resistance to change.

The last phase in the simple innovation process refers to the routines for capturing the value

from the innovation. This is considered in two ways, the first is by sustaining the adoption and

diffusion of the innovation and also the ability of the firm to learn from the innovation process and

improve the ways in which the process is managed.

2.9 Modes of learning and innovation: DUI and STI

While the simple innovation model presented above describes what innovating routines must

accomplish in an innovation process, it says very little in distinguishing between the innovative

routines employed by organizations that are able to innovate more frequently versus those that innovate

only on occasion or not at all. A fairly recent contribution in the literature; however, that does explain

heterogeneous differences in innovative performance has been put forth by Jensen et.al. (2004,2007).

According to the authors, innovative performance is related to two general modes of learning and


innovating applied by firms. The first mode stresses the use and distribution of codified, scientific, and

technical knowledge within the organization known as the Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI)

mode. The second is an experienced based mode of learning that emphasizes the access and use of

tacit knowledge through learning by ‘Doing’, ‘Using’, and ‘Interacting’ (DUI).

The two modes of learning emphasize the use of different aspects of knowledge. As such, it is

important to define what is meant by knowledge and to identify how each mode of learning utilizes

such knowledge in innovative activities. Polanyi (1958; 1966) distinguishes between two dimensions of

knowledge; an explicit and a tacit dimension, whereby the latter is considered more fundamental than

the former. As Polanyi (1966) notes, “all knowledge is either tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge. A

wholly explicit knowledge is unthinkable (p.144).” Tacit knowledge refers to the knowledge that “we

cannot tell.” It is non-conscious, automatic, personal, synergistic, and far more complex and powerful-

exceeding beyond the domain of explicit inference. In contrast, explicit knowledge refers to the

knowledge that is articulable and can be written down or as a ‘capped’ or abstracted version of tacit

knowledge. As such, explicit knowledge can be codified into formal procedures, rules, or stored as

information on databases.

Given that explicit knowledge can be written it can be widely distributed and thus has the

potential for global reach. However, this reach is curtailed by the tacit knowledge held by the recipient.

A certain degree of absorptive capacity is required in order to interpret codes and to discern its

meaning. As noted by Jensen et. al. (2007),

“A prepared mind helps a lot when it comes to absorbing codified knowledge…scientific text

give meaning only to other scientist and manuals may prove useful only to highly skilled

workers (681).”

This implies that to garner the full potential of explicit knowledge for global distribution, the

complementary tacit knowledge base must also be learned in order to complement the transfer of

explicit knowledge. Such learning may be acquired through learning by doing, using and interacting.

While learning by doing and using provide a means for a localized development of a tacit knowledge

base in an organization, learning by interacting provides a learning mode that has the potential to lift

localized tacit knowledge to the economy at large.


2.9.1 Taxonomy of Knowledge:

According to Lundvall and Johnson (1994), it is important to create further distinctions between

Polanyi´s knowledge dichotomy in order to identify the different channels in which tacit and explicit

knowledge are learned. The authors identify four types of knowledge: know-what, know-why, know-

how, and know-who.

Know-What refers to the knowledge about facts and is closely associated with the

term ‘information’. As such, this form of knowledge is amenable to codification;

where facts can be organized, managed, and distributed across information systems

and databases.

Know-Why refers to the “scientific knowledge of principles and laws of motion in

nature…but also to the interpretive frameworks based upon experience and intuition

(Jensen et al. 2004)”

Know-How refers to skills or the capability to do something. Know-How can also be

embedded within organizational routines.

And, lastly Know-Who refers not only to the knowledge of who knows what but also

the knowledge of how to interact and communicate in various social relationships and

communities of practice.

In the above, both know-what and know-why are largely attainable through various explicit knowledge

sources such as through reading books, accessing databases, or attending lectures. In contrast, know-

how and know-who are largely gained through experience such as through ‘learning by doing’, ‘using’,

and ‘interacting’. Although the four knowledge types are complementary and build on each other

within a firm, a distinction can be made to the degree in which firms rely more heavily on either more

explicit forms of knowledge (i.e. know-what and know-why) or on more tacit forms of knowledge (i.e.

know-who & know how) when learning and innovating (Jensen et al, 2004). The emphasis in how

organizations employ the four types of knowledge creates differences in the characteristics of the firm’s

learning routines.


In the STI mode of learning the utilization of codified (know-what) and techno-scientific

knowledge (know-why) takes precedence throughout the entire innovation process of search, selection,

implementation, and capture. For instance, organizational problem solving, although triggered from a

local context, will make use of global knowledge in order to arrive at a solution. Search may begin by

restating local problems into the scientific vernacular as to be accessible to other practitioners in a

community of practice. Scanning through various journals, internal documents, R&D activities, or

through external contacts from scientific institutions is conducted in order to select and identify pieces

of knowledge needed for implementation. During the entire process the practice of documenting partial

results and requirements are essential in assuring that the necessary inputs are available for other

organizational members investigating different aspects of a problem. Capturing the learning attained

from such a process may be documented in a post innovation/project review so as to be available when

the process is to be performed again.

In contrast, the DUI mode of learning emphasizes the use, accumulation, and

combination/recombination of tacit knowledge gained through problem solving activities related to the

production of goods or services. The solution sets arising from such experiences enhances the

capabilities of the firm by expanding their repertoire of routines. Unlike the STI mode of innovation

that stresses the importance of scientific or science-like understanding as a source of problem solving

leading to innovation, the outcomes of the DUI mode of innovation is only partially understood. As

noted by Jensen et. al. (2007) when quoting Nelson (2004),

“It is still the case that, ‘much of practice in most fields remains only partially understood,

and much of engineering design practice involves solutions to problems that professional

engineers have learned ‘work’ without any particularly sophisticated understanding of why’

(Nelson, 2004). Acc. (Jensen et. al., 2007, p 683).”

Since tacit knowledge is acquired by first-hand experience (learning by doing and using), transferred

through master/apprentice type relationships (learning by interacting) and combined/recombined

through the interaction of knowledge holders (also learning by interacting), the importance of know-

who in terms of social relationships and as access to know-how for the firm is vitally important.

Within the innovation process, Search may, for example, may begin by seeking know-how

internally or externally to the organization. In regards to external links with the firm, access to


strategic alliances with suppliers can aid in identifying sources for new innovation as can accessing

tacit knowledge held by potential customers of the innovation. This is so since both can contribute

important insight to the contents of the innovation. Empirical and conceptual evidence in the literature

has clearly shown that establishing close supplier and customer relations greatly benefit the innovative

capabilities of firms. As such, interaction with both suppliers and customers can influence the

Selection of certain aspects of the innovation. One particular technique that gives precedence to

customer value sets when making decisions is the practice of emphasizing the Voice of the Customer

(VOC) across the organization as a guideline in the selection process. The implementation of the

innovation may also involve the combination of various specialized tacit knowledge distributed across

various departments and functions. Routines, such as cross functional groups, enhance the interaction

amongst various knowledge holders and increase the possibility of combining knowledge. As new

knowledge emerges in support of the new innovation the processes becomes Captured in the memory

of the organization as operating and learning routines.

2.9.2 Innovating Routines

In Jensen et. al. (2007), the authors identify 7 ‘innovating routines’ associated with the DUI mode of

Learning and Innovating and 3 ‘innovating routines’ related to the STI mode of innovating presented

below in Table 1. Table 1: DUI & STI Routines

DUI Indicators/routines

Autonomous Groups E-2,3,4, Interdisciplinary Workgroups Quality Circles Systems for collecting proposals Integration of Functions Softened Demarcations Cooperation with customers

STI Indicator/routines

Expenditures on R&D Cooperation with researchers


The employment of scientifically trained personal includes BA/MA/PHD in Natural Sciences

Source: Jensen et. al. (2004, 2007)

2.9.2.1 STI Routines

The STI innovating routines which include the firm’s expenditures on R&D, cooperation with

researchers, and the employment of scientifically trained personal all have the effect of being able to

aid in either the creation or use of both know-what and know-why type knowledge. Research and

development activities in the firm directly aids in the creation of techno-scientific knowledge. In

addition, R&D in conjunction with the employment of scientifically trained personal has the added

effect of increasing the absorptive capacity of the firm. According to Cohen & Levinthal (1990), the

absorptive capacity or the ability of the firm to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it,

and use it for commercial purposes is greatly enhanced through internal R&D activities. This is one of

the reasons Cohen & Levinthal (1990) emphasize the use of R&D as opposed to simply acquiring

technologies via patents etc., since conducting R&D enhances the capability to use and produce new

knowledge.

In a similar manner, the hiring of scientifically trained personal also has the effect of increasing

the absorptive capacity of the firm, since scientifically trained employees may have specialized know-

what that allow them to better search for technical solutions than organizations without scientifically

trained personal. A recent study by Nielsen (2007) illustrates this point. In this study a comparison was

made between small firms that had not hired academic personal in relationship to those that had. It was

shown that when a small firm hired their first engineer there was a significant positive impact on the

propensity to introduce a new product on the market.

2.9.2.2 DUI Routines

The DUI mode of learning can also be enhanced by promoting specific ‘innovating routines’ that

intentionally bolster the use of learning by ‘doing’, ‘using’, and ‘interacting.’ The choice of learning

routines identified in Jensen (et.al. 2004, 2007) is based on the literature regarding the ‘learning


organization,’ and ‘high performance work systems’ (e.g. Clegg et al. (1996), Dertoutzos et al. (1989),

Gittleman et al. (1998), Osterman (1994, 2000), Ramsay et al. (2000), Truss (2001) and Wood (1999);

as well as the literature dealing with the relationship between ‘organizational design and

innovation’(e.g. Burns and Stalker, 1961; Mintzberg, 1979; Lam, 2005). The first four DUI routines

listed above in Table 1 which includes interdisciplinary workgroups, quality circles, systems for

collecting proposals, and the use of autonomous groups are all in keeping with the suggested practices

developed in the ‘high performance work systems literature. Such practices increase employee

involvement in decision making and problem solving. The literature relating organizational design to

innovation stresses the importance of flat and organic structures as important for learning and

innovating. As such, routines that allow for the integration of functions and softened demarcations are

also listed as DUI learning routines. Lastly, the importance of learning by interacting as a source of

innovation and as a source of generalizing knowledge has been widely accepted in the literature (need

citation). Innovating routines that strengthen the relationship between customers and producers

uncover needs that become new problem set to solve and are thus a crucial source for innovation.

Based on the empirical study performed by Jensen et. al. (2007) it was shown that product or

service innovation was twice as likely to occur if a firm adopted either the DUI or STI modes of

learning in comparison to non-learning firms as a baseline. However the most salient result from the

analysis is that firms that combined learning/innovating routines of both DUI and STI modes of

innovation were the most innovative and were five times more likely to innovate than non-learners.

Understanding how and why the combination of DUI and STI routines allow for superior innovative

capabilities is still a remaining question that requires analysis and is one of the central subjects of this

thesis.

2.10 Propositions

In order to answer such questions testable propositions on why the combination of DUI and STI

routines allow for greater likeliness to innovate will be presented below. According to Jensen et.

( 2004, 2007) firms that belong to sectors that require greater ties to the STI mode of learning have

greater incentives to adopt organizational structures and routines akin to the DUI mode of learning

since such firms are influenced by greater transformation pressures due to both technological change


and changing customer demands. In contrast, firms that operate largely in the DUI mode of learning

adopt greater links to the STI mode of learning in order to seek out technological opportunities.

Therefore the following propositions can be made:

Proposition 1: Firms involved in STI learning adopt DUI routines due to greater transformation pressures from both technological change and changes in customer demand.

Proposition 2: Firms involved in STI learning adopt DUI routines in order to better link to customer demands.

Proposition 3: Firms involved in DUI mode of learning adopt the STI mode of learning to increase the possibilities of techno-scientific search

These propositions listed above will be tested within the case evidence seen in Section 4 and 5.

38 3. METHODS

3. METHODS

The method section will describe the connection between the research question, the type of research strategy, the methods pursued, the manner in which data is collected and evaluated, and the criteria for

interpreting the findings.

39 3. METHODS

3.1 Research Type

The research problems formulated in section 1.1, and the propositions, posed in section 2.10,

will be approached through a case study research strategy. According to Hartley (2004) a case study

research strategy, or more simply known as a case study, refers to

a detailed investigation, often with data collected over a period of time, of a phenomena, within

their context,” with the purpose being, “to provide an analysis of the context and processes

which illuminate the theoretical issues being studied (p. 323 ).

A case study, rather than being considered narrowly as a research method, is more aptly referred to as a

research strategy (Hartley ,2004; Titscher et. al, 2000). As Stake (2000) explains, a “case study is not

a methodological choice, but a choice of what is to be studied; by whatever methods we choose to

study the case (Stake , 2000 p. 435).” Thus, a case study is not to be viewed in terms of its methods,

which may be quantitative, qualitative, or both, but towards a theoretical orientation toward a particular

unit(s) of analysis (Hartley, 2004; Stake, 2000).

The decision to pursue a case study for this thesis derives from the appropriateness of the case

study research strategy in addressing the formulated research problems and propositions. According to

Yin (2003a), “case studies are the preferred strategy when “how” or “why” questions are being asked

about a contemporary set of events of which the investigator has little or no control (p. 9).” Given that

the central and supporting questions of this thesis pertain to contemporary issues with events that are

external to my influence and that the central research problem are oriented in exploring how

routines/learning routines have been employed in an SME and why the combination of such learning

routines increase the innovative capabilities of a firm, the case study is a suitable research strategy.

3.2 Unit of Analysis

40 3. METHODS

Miles & Huberman (1994) defines the unit of analysis as a “phenomenon … occurring in a bounded

context whereby the case is in effect, your unit of analysis (p. 25).” The units of analysis in this thesis

are the DUI and STI learning routines developed and practiced by Global Wind Power in consideration

of how they function across the innovation process and how they relate to the definitional distinctions

pertaining to rules, behaviour, and dispositions. (A literature review of the routines concept and what

is meant by the learning routines is presented in Section 2.)

The units of analysis are considered in conjunction to two related but varying contexts that

delimits the boundaries of the case while ultimately linking with the formulated problems. These

include the binding of the case:

- 1 temporally- the units of analysis are seen through a longitudinal perspective within Global

Wind Power

- 2. The units of analysis are identified in how learning routines are currently used across the

organization

Furthermore, the units of analysis will be further bounded by the propositions developed in section

2.10.

3.3 Case Study Type & Design

When performing a case study, Yin (2003a, 2003b) recommends the consideration of at least three

criteria pertaining to the case study type and design to be used:

i. The first criterion refers to the decision regarding which type of case study to pursue.

ii. The second criterion refers to the choice between a single or multiple case study design

iii. And, the third criterion refers to the choice between either a holistic case study, consisting of a

single unit of analysis, or an embedded case study design, consisting of multiple units of

analysis.

41 3. METHODS

Accordingly, the following sections will present the case study type and design that is deemed

appropriate in addressing the formulated problems and propositions.

3.3.1 Case Study Type

In the case study literature, two prominent typologies for case studies exist (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The

first is put forth by Stake (1995) who views case studies as either intrinsic, in which the case study is

unique and has value in and of itself to be studied, or instrumental, where the case study is performed

in order to provide insight into a particular issue or refine a theory. In contrast, Yin (2003a)

distinguishes between three case study types: exploratory, explanatory, and descriptive. An

exploratory case study design is performed either to determine the feasibility of a desired research

procedure or to generate research questions and hypotheses for future study, such as in a grounded

theoretical approach to case studies (e.g. Glaser & Strauss,1967). Descriptive case studies are intended

to present a complete description of a phenomenon under investigation within its context. Lastly, an

explanatory case study is performed in order to present data that explains the presumed cause-effect

relationships of a phenomenon i.e. explaining how an event or phenomenon has transpired.

The purpose of these typologies as explained by Stake (2003) is not necessarily that it is useful

to sort case studies into categories, but rather that the different type of case study pursued has

implications regarding the research design practiced. Based on the definitions provided above, the type

of case study pursued in this thesis is consistent with Stake’s instrumental case study and Yin’s

explanatory case study. This is so, since the case study is performed in support of already existing

literature regarding modes of learning whereby explanatory evidence on how and why the combination

of learning modes increases the innovative capabilities of SME are a remaining issue.

3.3.2 Single vs. Multiple-Case Design

When considering whether to pursue a single versus multiple-case study design, it is important to

“recall that a single-case study is analogous to a single experiment, and that many of the same

conditions that justify a single experiment also justify a single-case study (Yin, 2003a. , p. 39).” That

42 3. METHODS

is, both experiments and case studies are able to be generalized based on an analytical generalization,

which is a generalization to theory, and not on the basis of a statistical generalization, which is

generalization of populations. According to Punch (2000) the use of analytical generalization relates to

theory verification and theory generation. Theory verification entails interpreting or explaining a

research question based on established theory, while theory generation requires the interpretation or

explanation of a phenomenon that has not been accounted for in terms of known theory. The

propositions developed in Section 2.10 will provide the baseline in which theory verification through

pattern matching can be established while the unexpected finding are used as sources of stimulus for

both theory generation and suggestions for future studies.

According to Yin(2003) there are five reasons in which to pursue a single case study design.

These include cases that are:

i. Critical Cases: used in testing well formulated theory

ii. Extreme or Unique Cases: where the uniqueness of the case warrants a study in it’s own

right

iii. Representative or typical cases- a case representing a common experience or pattern

iv. Revelatory Cases- previously inaccessible phenomenon

v. Or Longitudinal Cases- case requiring the identification of patterns over time

The single-case study design, as ultimately pursued here, was chosen in order to focus the

investigation on one of the central research problems of this thesis (i.e. How learning routines influence

the development and continuation of such product, service, and process innovations at GWP?) which

entails a longitudinal perspective. Secondly, the single case perspective allows for the answering of the

second main question of this thesis (i.e. Which routines could be adopted at GWP that would allow the

organization to increase their innovative capabilities? which can only be identified through a single-

case perspective –narrowly in the context of GWP. A third and final reason in which a single-case

study design was chosen over a multiple case study design is due to practical research limitations. A

multiple case study design is often desirable and can add to the overall robustness of the research by

replicating the pattern-matching derived from theory in multiple settings. This however, was unable to

be pursued here due to limitations in gaining access to more firms to partake in the study under the

same research methods.

43 3. METHODS

3.3.3 Unit of Analysis: holistic vs. embedded

A third criterion in designing a case study is whether to choose a holistic or embedded case study

design. Holistic case studies pertain to the use of one unit of analysis whereas an embedded case study

analysis considers multiple units of analysis. The units of analysis for this case study pertain to the

learning and innovating routines in both the DUI and STI modes of learning. This study will identify

the routines involved in both a general and more specific sense. When identifying more specific

learning routines, this study relies on the indicators for the learning modes as identified by Jensen et. al.

(2004, 2007).

Figure 3 below presents the possible research design considerations in relationship to the ones

ultimately chosen for this thesis. As highlighted below, this study will approach the formulated

research problems through an explanatory single case study design utilizing embedded units of analysis

(i.e. learning routines) within the context of Global Wind Power.

Figure 3: Dimensions of the Case Study Research Design

Source: Yin(2003)

Context

Case

Context

Case Embedded Unit of Analysis (EUA 1) Embedded Unit of Analysis (EUA 2)

ContextCaseEUA 1 EUA 2




Context

Case

Context

Case

Context

Case

Context

Case

Single case design Multiple case design

Holistic

(single unit of analysis)

Embedded

(multiple unit of analysis)

44 3. METHODS

3.4 Data Sources

One of the advantages of utilizing a case study as research strategy is the use of multiple data sources

that enhance data credibility through triangulation (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Patton, 1990; Yin, 2003).

Accordingly, this study has made use of several different sources of data which include:

- Internal company documents i.e. Business Plan, GWP presentations, & Wings of History

(Company History)

- External company documents i.e. company website

- Semi-structured Interviews: approximately 3 ½ hrs of recorded interviews (HR meeting 1; HR

meeting 2, BD meeting)

- Survey directed at both Management and Non-managerial Employees (see. Appendix B)

Among those listed above the methods for developing the Survey and Semi-Structured Interview will

be discussed below.

3.4.1 Surveys

Two targeted surveys were created and administered to the staff at Global Wind Power. The first was

developed for the Management staff and the second for non-managerial employees. Both surveys

contained sections with similarly themed questions that were intended to increase the reliability of the

results through the triangulation of responses derived from similar lines of questioning.

Simultaneously, the use of a management and a non-management employee level survey allowed for a

separate series of questions that pertained more to either of the two levels, thus gaining further insight

into the management and non-management level perspectives.

Out of the 90 employees at Global Wind Power, 66 were available as potential respondents. The

remaining 23 employees were located in offices outside of Denmark where, due to significant

employee time constraints were unavailable as potential respondents. In all, a sample size of 8

management surveys and 33 non-managerial surveys were completed. The sample of managerial and

non-managerial respondents reflected a distribution across all supporting business units and line

functions located in Denmark.

45 3. METHODS

3.4.1.1 Survey Purpose

The purpose of utilizing the survey method was to identify:

i. which ‘innovating routines’ if any were present at Global Wind Power

ii. the degree to which learning routines were distributed across the organization,

iii. the organizational changes that have taken place over the past two years and

iv. The types of innovation produced by such organizational changes.

3.4.1.2 Pilot Survey

Prior to administering the surveys to all potential respondents, a pilot survey which included the

original questions found in the DISKO survey, Jensen et. al, (2004, 2007) and upcoming Meadow

Project survey was reviewed by both the HR Manager and Consultant at Global Wind Power in order

to determine the potential relevancy of such a survey for the staff at large. During our meeting it was

determined that the questions pertaining to interdisciplinary workgroups, quality circles, and

autonomous groups if presented in its original version may arrive at misleading results (see Table 1 for

list DUI and STI learning routines). This was primarily due to the argument that “formalized or

permanent work groups” were not practiced at Global Wind Power. Rather, Global Wind Power made

use of ad hoc work groups that formed organically around organizational problems or new

developments as they occurred. According to the HR consultant, employees, although accustomed to

working in collaboration with other colleagues across the organization, may respond in the negative to

such questions regarding group work since they may not view their interaction with others as defined as

“group work.” Therefore, in order to test whether Global Wind Power made use of organizational

practices that were similar to quality circles, interdisciplinary and autonomous workgroups, an

expanded set of questions were addressed that focused on identifying how employees interacted, who

they interacted with, and with what purpose. Doing so would allow for an indication as to whether

such interactions were fruitful for combining and diffusing knowledge across the organization.

3.4.2 Semi-Structured Interviews

46 3. METHODS

In addition to the survey method, this case study makes use of semi-structured interviews.

Kvale (1996) defines a semi-structured interview as an “inter-view whose purpose is to obtain

descriptions of the life world of the interviewee with respect to interpreting the meaning of the

described phenomenon.” The semi-structured interview is distinct from everyday conversation in that

it is purposeful and involves a specific approach and technique – thus it is neither an everyday

conversation nor a closed questionnaire (Kvale & Brinkman, 2008). According McNamara (1999), the

semi-structured interview is also useful in gaining the context behind the participants’ experiences, and

maybe valuable in following up on responses gained from questionnaires.

Accordingly, the semi-structured interviews performed here consisted of one group interview

with two members in HR performed prior to the administering of the survey and an interview with the

Business Development Manager performed after the survey results had been evaluated. The purpose of

the first interview was to gain knowledge of organizational practices as well as general knowledge

pertaining to the products and services in GWP’s value chain; while the second interview conducted

with the Business Development Manager was performed in order to understand how learning routines

are employed during the project management development lifecycle of a wind farm and how learning

routines are employed in deciding which market to pursue. The group interview with HR consisted of

2hrs of recorded dialogue while the interview with the Business Development Manager consisted of 1

½ hrs of dialogue.

47 4. CASE STUDY EVIDENCE

4. CASE STUDY EVIDENCE

The following case study provides the empirical evidence on the affect of learning routines, considered

in both a general and specific sense, on the introduction of innovative products/services and processes

at GWP. The case study commences with an introduction to the company; highlighting their current

products/service offerings. This is followed by an account of the historical evidence chronicling the

role of DUI and STI modes of innovating and learning on the emergence of their current

product/service capabilities along the innovation process.


4.1 Introduction

Global Wind Power (GWP), a windfarm development company, has seen tremendous growth over the

past few years. The company was conceived on the vision of providing Danish Investors opportunities

to invest in windfarm projects globally. After only 10 short years this vision has manifested into

reality, with the expansion of their employee base to 90+ employees in 2010 and operations expanding

beyond Denmark to include Germany, Bulgaria, France, and Romania. During this period, GWP has

gained an impressive 380 MW of experience consisting of over 200 erected wind turbines. The

Technical and Commercial Management Department, which is responsible for the monitoring,

maintenance, and financial reporting of wind farm sites for investors, currently manages over 800,000

MWh of electrical output per year- the equivalent to the annual consumption of 180,000 households.

4.2 GWP Value Chain

There are three core product/service areas that comprise Global Wind Power’s value chain. These

services include Greenfield Development, Turnkey, and Technical & Commercial Management (TCM)

(see Figure 4 below). From the vantage point of an investor, the three service areas can be employed in

tandem as a complete package or alternatively as independent modules depending upon the client’s

needs and competencies.

Figure 4: Global Wind Power Value Chain

Source: Presentation of Global Wind Power


4.2.1 Greenfield Development

Greenfield Development(GD) refers to the planning and development of a wind turbine project from

the ‘early open land stage’ to the point where all permits and agreements necessary for construction of

a wind farm are obtained. The lead times associated with Greenfield tend to be fairly long, ranging

between 3 – 5 years. As a result , GWP, for a good part of their history, had mostly relied on acquiring

projects where the Greenfield phase of development was more or less complete, making only a few

changes to the project design with the support of the pre-developer. As such, a major area of activity

for GWP concerns the routines involved in the search and selection of potential markets.

Recent efforts in the organization, however, have been made to expand their capabilities into

the Greenfield stage of development. In 2009, GWP acquired the French Greenfield Developer,

VentInvest. The acquisition of VentInvest not only allowed GWP greater know-how when performing

Greenfield development but moreover, it sparked the realization that Greenfield Development was

beneficial to the company’s overall strategy- a strategy that sought greater flexibility in servicing

emerging industrial and institutional clients while creating greater reliability in the overall wind farm

development. As such, Greenfield development is now a part of the repertoire of product/service

capabilities being offered.

4.2.1.1 Greenfield Development Phases

Greenfield is subdivided into two phases of development. Phase I involves the evaluation and

selection of a windfarm location. Phase II concerns all the detailed planning and project design for the

windfarm that is required in order to receive the permits to build.

4.2.1.1.1 Greenfield Development Phase I

Phase I comprises all the feasibility studies and calculations concerning:

i. the wind conditions,


ii. grid connection,

iii. site conditions: quality of the roads, access to the roads, and soil conditions

iv. And potential environmental impact.


Each of these areas represents potential risks that are actively monitored and controlled. First,

wind conditions must be evaluated. Assessing wind conditions not only indicate the potential revenue

that can be expected but it also dictates the type of wind turbines that are to be used for the build i.e.

wind turbines designed for either low or high wind conditions. This in turn has implications for the

overall project design and the types of permits to be acquired.

Second, identifying if there is enough capacity on the grid and where the possible connections to

the grid can be made are vitally important. This is usually undertaken by a third party grid connection

consultant that is able to analyse public data on electrical networks and determine the best connection

strategy for the generation projects. Identifying where connections are made and selecting sights where

the transmission infrastructure is less demanding can be a way to minimize excess costs. When a site is

finally chosen, the study of the transmission infrastructure is then used as supporting documentation in

the preliminary grid connection application with the utility company.

Third, determining the feasibility of a particular construction site is performed by investigating three

attributes of the potential site which include:

i. the quality of the access roads,

ii. the accessibility of the access roads and

Figure 5: Greenfield Development Phase 1 (GFD-1)

Action: Wind Studies – Grid Connection – Site – Environment

Target: Securing of land – Grid connection agreement


iii. the bearing capacity of the ground where the wind turbines and crane pads are to be

placed.

Verifying the quality of the access roads are essential in assuring that all necessary equipment,

trucks, wind turbines, blades etc are able to be brought safely to the construction site. Since many of

the areas where windfarms are established are often in rural lands where the road conditions are rather

poor, it is essential to know exactly the condition of such roads. If a site is chosen with poor roads, the

roads must be built up to a certain level of quality in order to handle the extreme loads that will be

placed on them during the construction phase. If the construction of the roads, for example, are not

built up to a certain level of quality and damages are made to any of the trucks, equipment, or turbines

the losses incurred would be at GWP’s own liability (BD interview).

Aside from assuring the access and bearing capacity of the roads, it is also important to test the

specific ground areas where the foundations for each turbine and crane pad are to be placed. This is

determined by collecting soil samples in there exact locations. Doing so identifies whether it is even

possible to erect a turbine at such a location as well as dictating the construction methods used.

Fourth and finally, an environmental assessment must be performed. This includes identifying

whether the site posses any risk to any protected local or migratory wild life. In addition, the

environmental assessment also includes an investigation on the effect of the wind farm on neighbouring

properties. In particular, it is important to make sure that the wind turbines are situated in a manner

that the blades and turbine do not cast shadows over neighbouring properties. This is done so sun light

shining behind the turning blades does not cause light to flicker on adjacent properties. Improper

positioning of the turbines in this manner could pose a nuisance when the blades are in motion and

could potentially equate to huge losses if they have to be relocated.

Once these feasibility areas are addressed and a preliminary grid connection agreement, a

landowner agreement, and an acknowledgement of the construction site’s location by the appropriate

public authorities are obtained, phase I of Greenfield is considered complete.

4.2.1.1.2 Greenfield Phase II


Phase II of Greenfield involves the creation of a preliminary technical and structural project design,

civil works, and electrical works in order to gain the appropriate permits for implementation. Once all

permits and final grid connection agreements for the wind farm project are obtained and a final

environmental impact assessment is made, the project is said to be ready for the Turnkey Phase of

development.

Figure 6: Project Design and Processing by the Authorities (GFD-2):

Action: Project design - Civil Works - Electrical Works

Target: Building permit - Final Grid connection agreement -Environmental Impact Assessment

Source: GWP General Presentation

4.2.2 Turnkey Phase of Development

While the Greenfield development primarily pertains to all the necessary feasibility studies (GF-1) and

‘paper’ requirements/permits (GF-2) needed to break ground on the windfarm project, the Turnkey

phase of development entails the more detailed planning and actual construction of the access roads,

crane pads, foundations, cabling, and transformer station; as well as handling the delivery, construction,

and commissioning of the wind turbines.

Turnkey Development at GWP varies in the degree in which investors may participate in the

development of their wind turbine project. This leads to two potential scenarios. The first is a Full-

Turnkey Development solution where the entire implementation process is managed by GWP. This is

typically advantageous for private individuals or group investors who lack the knowledge to contribute

to the development. The second is a Semi-Turnkey solution that allows for direct investor involvement

in the implementation process. The investors that typically involve themselves within the semi-turnkey

aspect of development are often institutional or industrial investors. Involvement typically pertains to

the selection of wind markets and projects, the procurement of the wind turbines, and/or infrastructure


provisions. Despite whether the project is turnkey or semi turnkey GWP provides project and site

management over the design, planning, implementation, and construction of the windfarm.

GWP; however, does not perform the actual construction and electrical works themselves but

rather contracts the work to local subcontractors. As such, one of GWP’s role as project manager is to

prepare the materials to be made available for tender regarding the civil, electrical, and construction

works for the project. Once subcontractors have been selected and construction has begun, GWP’s role

shifts from project to site management; ensuring that the construction works concerning the access

roads, crane pads, and foundations live up to the way they are described in the construction agreements.

This stresses the role of knowing what is needed in order to bring a wind project into fruition and who

possesses the know-how in order to complete the task.

4.2.3 Technical & Comercial Management

The third and final link in the value chain is the Technical and Commercial Management

(TCM). TCM pertains to all the services concerning the operation of the wind turbine investment once

the wind farm has been completed. This includes technical management, financial, and accounting

services. The Technical Management side of TCM pertains to the optimizing of the output of electricity

generated by the turbines. This requires the daily monitoring of the wind turbines via an online

administration tools that are linked in real-time to internal sensors in each turbine. The TCM

department, which is located in Herning, Denmark, is in daily contact with local operations managers

that are available for onsite visits in the event that a physical inspections or the performance of a simple

repair is in order. When damages to the turbines are significant and require the maintenance of the

manufacturer, the operation manager is also able to provide a thorough description of the problem,

assuring a swift and appropriate response by the manufacturer’s service team. In addition, to

monitoring the operations of the turbine itself, the Technical Management is also responsible for the

maintenance of the infrastructure surrounding the wind turbine. This includes, for example, the

inspection of all access roads to ensure that the turbines are accessible year round. In addition, the

Technical Management performs four annual inspections, of which two inspections are performed

alongside the manufacturer’s service team.


4.3 GWP Pre-history

When GWP opened their doors for business in 2002, their organizational capabilities only

reflected a small portion of the current value chain above. This beckons the question in regards to

learning routines on How did learning routines contribute to the emergence and development of the

innovations present at Global Wind Power?

Instead of beginning the case study from the point where the company has been formed, there is

some value in chronicling the pre-history of the organization in order to understand how events

unfolded and how initial learning routines were established. As such, the following section chronicles

this growth with the focus on presenting the role of learning habits on the development of

organizational learning routines.

Figure 7: Global Wind Power Timeline

Source: Wings of History: Useful Information about Global Wind Power

4.3.1 DUI modes of learning as access to know-what and know-how


The early development of Global Wind Power10 can be best described as progressing initially through

the experienced based modes of learning. Even prior to the establishment of the company, owner

Henrik Amby displayed DUI learning habits that ultimately carried over to organizational-level

learning routines.

Global Wind Power was established in 2002 by Henrik Amby, but his experience in Wind Farm

Development began much earlier. His entrance into the business was not by way of any formal

education (know-why) in engineering, project management or the like, but simply began with the

realization of the potential profitability of investing in wind energy. In 1985, Henrik married into a

family that successfully owned and operated a wind turbine on their farm. When traditional farming

ran into hardship, Henrik’s father-in-law often lamented on how he should have invested more in wind

turbines rather than on pigs or fallow deer.

By 1995, Henrik’s curiosity in wind energy began to grow. He began to notice that a

significant increase of wind turbines were being erected along his commute between Thy and

Holsterbro where he served as a Staff Sergeant with the Jutland Dragoon Regiment. One of these

turbines belonged to a neighbouring farmer who was beginning construction. It was the first time

Henrik had seen the turbine, blades, and tower up close; the sight of which seemed to make owning a

wind turbine that much more attainable. To answer some of his questions regarding owning a turbine

he contacted Vestas, a prominent wind turbine manufacturer.

Through learning by interacting with Vestas, Henrik was able to leverage Vestas’ knowledge

and gain an understanding of what was entailed in the financing, planning, and implementation of a

wind turbine project (know-what). For the initial purposes of financing, Vestas aided Henrik by

preparing a financial forecast showing that owning a wind turbine could breakeven within 7 years and

could generate a sizeable return after 20 years. Despite that financial projections looked positive,

Henrik had no financial capital of his own and was denied financing by three banks. It was only by

way of Henrik’s personal network (know-who) was he able to attain the finances needed to break

ground. As it turned out Henrik’s neighbour, the one who had begun construction on his own wind

turbine was also a loan officer and had experience in funding wind turbine projects in the area. The

10 The following narrative presents an adaptation of GWP’s own historical account found in the Wings of History document. The adaptation presented here highlights certain aspects of GWP’s history that are considered pertinent to the analysis, adds a new layer of insight through statements gathered via interviews, while omitting other areas in the company’s history that were deemed inconsequential to the analysis. The interested reader may view GWP’s Wing’s of History document via the following link http://www.globalwindpower.com/en/about-global-wind-power/history.aspx

http://www.globalwindpower.com/en/about-global-wind-power/history.aspx


two were able to come to an arrangement and Henrik was able to gain the financing needed to break

ground.

4.3.2 Competency building through ‘Learning By Doing’

‘Learning by Doing’ also played a major role in building Henrik’s competencies. When Henrik had

finished the majority of his project planning and was at the ‘ready to build stage,’ the vendor for the

site, who was also interested in erecting a turbine of his own, had inquired if Henrik would be willing

to manage the planning and construction of his turbine. A neighbour, who was also interested in

erecting two turbines nearby had likewise requested for Henrik’s help. Suddenly Henrik, who had no

previous experience in the matter, found himself in charge of overseeing the project management and

construction site management of 4 wind turbines; in effect a small windfarm.

“I learned so much in that six month period, says Henrik Amby “About technology, grid

connection, calculation of wind speeds, maintenance, finance and capital etc… -and how

rational and irrational farmers can be (Wings of History p.13).”

During the construction phase of the four turbines, Henrik discovered a job ad posted by Vindkraft

Nord, a local windfarm developer. They were seeking out local consultants to sell shares on 5 small

wind turbines to private investors in Fjerritslev. Impressed by Henrik’s current project, the owner

immediately hired Henrik to lead a group of eight sales consultants. When the shares had been sold,

Henrik was asked to stay on as a construction site manager.

He was able to perform this role by working alongside a very skilled contractor. “I just

said”yes” to everything he said,” exclaims Henrik. “I learned a lot about construction, foundations,

cables, routes and grid connection.” The master/apprentice relationship afforded by close interaction

with the contractor did not only lend itself to the ‘know-what’ and ‘know-why’s’ of windturbine

construction, but also to the more tacit details and ‘know-how’ involved in making critical decisions.

“I also found out that a project has a critical period of 2 to 3 weeks,” says Henrik Amby.

“This is when the turbines start to arrive. You have to make quick decisions and be ready

for anything. It really gets your adrenaline going. It is absolutely fascinating (Wings of

History, p. 14).”


Henrik remained with Vindkraft Nord for three years. During this time he witnessed the company grow

from being a local developer to a national player. This growth was in part attributed to Henrik’s idea of

using ‘land hunters’ to search and secure lands that were earmarked for windfarm construction. The

idea of land hunters was first applied in Southern Jutland and later extended to the country at large.

Doing so ensured the companies space in the market that was increasingly gaining competition from

new entrants in the form of collectives and fledgling developers. As Henrik exclaims,

“A lot of school teachers and police officers had sideline jobs cobbling together

cooperative projects. Sometimes we almost queued to get on the drive (Wings of History,

p. 15).”

This increase of new entrants on the market also meant that land owners could now play buyers against

each other and drive up the price of land. Henrik knew that scarce lands that were earmarked for wind

turbines in Denmark would ultimately result in the inability of the company to erect all the turbines

demanded by an ever growing investor base.

Henrik’s response to this challenge was to search for areas abroad. One of the projects that he

championed involved the development of 45 wind turbines to be erected in Minnesota. Despite that

everything was in place for the sale and construction of the project, the owner of Vindkraft Nord

decided to back out of the project at the last moment-a decision that Henrik deeply regretted. It became

clear to Henrik that he and the owner did not share the same vision for the company. Unlike the owner,

Henrik envisioned a company that could operate at the global level.

Soon after, Henrik resigned from Vindkraft Nord and began working independently with the

U.S. market. Unfortunately, after several visits to the U.S., it became clear that Danish Investor’s

would not be able to benefit from U.S. tax credits on green energy; thus making his project unviable.

4.3.3 From learning habits to learning routines: the origin of ‘ProPartner’

Although Henrik’s U.S. project came to nothing, the time spent in the U.S. was not wasted. During his

trip to the U.S., Henrik had worked closely with Vestas, and in so doing, developed a close professional

and personal relationship with several of the employees situated in Vestas’ Palm Springs office. One


particular friendship was developed with Hans Jorgen Rieks. At this point in time, Hans had just been

promoted to Managing Director of Vestas Germany and was interested in generating turnover for his

new territory. Simultaneously Henrik, now with the U.S. project abandoned, was looking for ways in

which he could make an impact. During a conversation, Hans had requested for Henrik’s help on a

project that was being developed in Magdeburg, Germany. The project already had a developer and

permission to build, but what the project lacked was someone who could find Danish Investors.

Having an established network of Danish farmers that were interested in investing in wind energy,

Henrik immediately agreed to help out.

“Vestas and I had a common goal,” says Henrik Amby, “although in principle we were

counterparts (Wings of History, p. 20).” This relationship (between Hans and Henrik) was the

beginning of what is now called ‘ProPartner,’ says Hanne Toft Andersen, Head of Human Resource

(HR Interview). ProPartner is a business concept developed by GWP that stresses the importance of

external business collaborations based on developing trust, openness, and long term relationships (see

Figure 8).

Figure 8: ProPartner Concept


“When our contact at Vestas is having some problems we will solve them for him and they in turn will

do the same for us and it is not a written down agreement every time. It is really about trust” says

Hanne (HR Interview). According to Michael Nymann, Business Development Manager, ProPartner


with Vestas has been a major strategic advantage, “it has allowed us to provide our customers with an

operational efficiency of 98% on their windturbine investment (BD Interview).” This operational

efficiency, which refers to the percentage of the time the wind turbines are guaranteed to be in

operation, is best in class even out pacing Vestas own operational guarantee of 95%. As Hanne

explains,

“when we call Vestas and say, hey we have wind turbine not running. Then they will not come

in a week but they will come the next day. So we have this really good relationship with Vestas

and that is very very important…Now we are trying to extend this concept (ProPartner) so that

it can evolve beyond our relationship with Vestas to include our very important customers (HR

Interview).”

Box 1: ProPartner – Learning Routine as ‘Rules of Thumb’

The emergence of the ProPartner concept illustrates GWP’s first major process innovation. It reflects

the emergence of innovating routines pertaining to strategic alliances with both key suppliers and more

recently key customers. What is notable when viewing the development of the concept from the

definitional framework which includes rules, behaviour, and dispositions, was that the ProPartner

concept was first held at the individual-level as a habit i.e. the tendency for Henrik to keep in contact

with key employees at Vestas when dealing with arising problems. Henrik actuated this habit as

behavior. The importance of this underlying rule-like behavior was then diffused across the

organization as a ‘rule of thumb’ i.e. employees were encouraged to contact Vestas when dealing with

organizational problems. The ‘rule of thumb’ is then internalized by multiple employees as a similar,

albeit most likely not identical, habit.

The depiction of the emergence of ProPartner as a ‘rule of thumb’ affecting habits is however

distinct from the view of routines as disposition (see Hodgson, 2008; Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994) which

defines routines as the sequential triggering of habits, whereby the triggering of one habit produces a

behavior that influences the context that triggers the habit of another so on and so forth. ‘Rules of

thumb,’ as seen in the emergence of the ‘ProPartner’ concept, are applicable in a much wider context


allowing for faster and greater ‘ad hoc problem-solving’ than the more routinized view of routines as

organizational dispositions.

This may indicate that the importance of simple heuristics and rules of thumb when applied in

learning and innovating are not just found amongst established firms operating in ‘high velocity’

industries, as identified in the Dynamic Capabilities literature (see Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000), but also

in slower changing industries where individual firms are uncertain about their strategic position in the

market place. Thus, the practice of rules of thumb may not just be the effect of external industry

structure on firm conduct but also more endogenously the result of a firm’s own limited understanding

of the market and their own strategic position. This may suggest that there are at least two levels of

uncertainty to consider; external uncertainty derived from the change rate found within an industry or

sector and an internal uncertainty due to limited understanding of strategic positioning.

This ‘rule of thumb’ manner of working at GWP has been integral in problem-solving. Some of

these problem issues for example related to acquiring knowledge regarding country market selection

(BD Interview), customer selection (BD interview), shared experiences in conflicts arising from

internationalization (HR Interview 1), etc.

The proliferation of this important connection developed later on as a formalized concept

(formal ‘rule of thumb’) i.e. ProPartner. Formalizing the concept brought about greater attention to it,

in particular to expanding the concept to important customers. This more recently has triggered

searches for internal processes that support the ProPartner customer platform. Today, Key Account

Management practices (routines as procedures) have been adopted in the organization reflecting the

introduction of another process innovation and opening up doors to further product innovations such as

the sale of ‘green power’ targeted at institutional and industrial customers that are looking to offset

emissions through ‘greener’ sources of energy (BDM interview).

4.4 The Beginning of Global Wind Power

Although Henrik desired to open a company that could operate on the global market, he

continued working as an independent operator. This changed, however; during a project that was setup


by Vestas in Fjeritslev. The project involved a two turbine cooperative that required the replacement of

their existing turbines. During the project, Henrik began to look more closely at Thisted Commune’s

upcoming energy proposal and realized that the upcoming wind energy plan made it advantageous for

investors and wind farm cooperatives to replace their existing wind turbines with larger ones.

Recognizing that there was now an opportunity to secure the market, Henrik contacted two of his

colleagues at Vindkraft Nord and the three, now operating under the name Global Wind Power, began

racing to make pre-emptive agreements with investors. They quickly secured the market and by year

end, they had managed to dismantle 130 scrapped turbines and erect 12.

By the summer of 2003, the company was in full swing and Henrik’s vision of operating on the

international market could now be realized. The company, continuing on where Henrik left off as a

independent operator, positioned themselves as a sales and promotion company, assisting third party

developers in sales budgeting, marketing, and end-sales of turbines to Danish investors. Their

ProPartner relationship with Vestas remained very important as did their expanding network of

windfarm developers and key investors in Denmark. Their first project in Germany, which consisted of

the sales of 8 turbines in Buckwitz, was attained from a project developer acquainted with Henrik.

Another project, shortly thereafter, was preempted by a local investor in Thisted who was seeking

support in the acquisition of a wind turbine in Germany.

4.5 Learning by Interacting with Investors leads to the emergence of TCM

During the course of the German acquisition project, GWP took on a role that was wider in

scope than previously experienced. They were not only in charge of overseeing the sale of the project

but were also providing advice to investors and negotiating with vendors on their behalf. ‘Learning by

Interacting’ with an investor during the course of the project unveiled certain latent needs previously

unconsidered. It made apparent that what an investor required was to feel more in touch with their

investment; an investment that was not only geographically but culturally and institutionally distant.

This realization instigated a massive organizational effort to further uncover what clients valued

when investing in a wind turbine project developed abroad. Numerous meetings were held with

multiple investors. “It was the biggest and longest project I have been involved in,” says Henrik Amby


(Wings of History, p. 28). What emerged from the investigation was an administrative apparatus that

addressed a wide array of after sales services. These new services, under the name of Technical and

Comercial Mangement (TCM), included daily operations management and analysis, service and

infrastructure maintenance, claims processing and financial and tax reporting.

TCM was now an area of expertise and a crucial area in which GWP could add value to a wind

turbine investment. “Our administrative apparatus is clearly the key to keeping our customers happy

and to our ability to resell,” says Henrik Amby (Wings of History, p. 28). “It means that what we have

to offer is a complete product in a class of its own (ibid, p. 28).”

Box 2: Emergence and Development of TCM

The DUI mode of innovating and in particular ‘learning by interacting’ with customers has been highly

influential in the initial search and selection of innovative opportunities targeted at GWP’s Danish

private investor customer base. Due to geographical, technical, and cultural distance a private investor

or group of investors are unable to relate to daily operations and maintenance of their wind turbine

investment made abroad nor are investors familiar with the financial and tax implications that are

governed by both Danish regulations and local legislation in each country market.

In order for GWP to address these customer needs, the DUI mode of learning needed to be

complemented by the STI mode of learning during the implementation process of the innovation .

This initially required the hiring of technical experts for example, those that were familiar with

Windfarm Information Systems,11 and engineers with specialist knowledge pertaining to the wind

turbine mechanics. In addition, GWP also needed to establish local operations management partners

and provide training for each country unit.

Capturing the innovation is maintained through the continuous development of TCM that

requires both DUI and STI modes of learning. New developments in wind turbine technology,

information systems, new tax regulations, expanding country product markets, and new institutional

11 An example of the Windfarm Information Systems include VESTAS Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA)


and industrial customers provide stimulus in which the TCM department continuously develops and

learns. For example the Comercial Management side of TCM, is in continuous contact with local

country units, lawyers, auditors, and banks to make sure that new tax implications and investor interest

are being taken into account. Likewise the STI mode of learning is important in the continuous

absorption of new technologies, systems, etc.

The learning processes collectively has a resulted in the ability of the organization to achieve

greater flexibility, to the extent that TCM can be modularized as an independent product all on it’s own

and can manage windfarms where the Greenfield and Turnkey aspects were developed externally by a

third party.

4.5.1 The introduction of TCM accelerates demand, forcing GWP to expand capabilities into Turnkey to meet demand pressures

The creation of TCM coincided with GWP taking on a greater role in the acquisition of wind

projects near the beginning of the so called Turnkey phase of development; the point when wind

projects are more or less ‘ready to build’ but are still amenable to design changes. Expanding

organizational capabilities into Turnkey would ensure the continuous supply of wind projects for

investors rather than relying solely on reselling projects developed by a third party. As a result of this

strategy the company was able to grow quite rapidly, nearly doubling employee numbers annually

between 2004 and 2009.

Box 3: Adapting through Formal Rules in Turnkey Development

In contrast to TCM, Turnkey emerged primarily out of the need for GWP to have greater flexibility in

providing a greater number of projects for sale rather than being the result of learning routines per se.


The continuous development of Turnkey, however was based on the combination of both DUI and

STI modes of learning.

Since GWP does not perform the actual construction, civil, and electrical works themselves but

rather hires subcontractors for the job, a major role for GWP involves the Project Management

aspects of the build. This entails the preparation of the materials made available for tender (i.e.

‘routines as procedures’ that specify how civil and electrical works are to be performed. This required

establishing greater links to the STI mode of learning in order to absorb and use scientific knowledge

pertaining to the engineering disciplines. This has resulted in the creation of the Product Management

Department which performs all the engineering and wind calculations. Simultaneously, the application

of these procedural documents during the actual construction are combined with the DUI mode of

learning through the presence of a Site Manager during the build who is able to provide feedback on

the effectiveness of such procedural rules, thus allowing for the adaptation of ‘rules as procedures’ to

take place. As Michael Nymann explains,

“We have the know-how to do the construction…it is not that it is anything difficult. It’s just

that we have done it many of times. So we know exactly what is needed…This is done through the

combined work with the pre-developer, product management, the project manager, and the

construction manager who has the experience of being on site and knowing what is possible (BD

Interview).”

In order to support the new business growth, GWP in 2004 began to transform itself into a more

structured organization, establishing departments and departmental managers in finance, design, and

sales. The change was ideal in terms of managing the acquisition, development, and sales of projects

as well as providing greater assurance to banking, insurance, and external partners that demanded

greater structure.

These organizational changes were made at the right time. By 2005 projects and investor were

in abundance, resulting in a record breaking year in terms of revenue and profit. However by 2006,

financiers whom had seen the opportunities present in wind energy began pushing up the prices of wind

projects in Germany. Global Wind Power decided not to go along with the unrealistic high prices but

instead to focus their efforts on searching for new markets and projects.


4.6 Know-Who is combined with Know-Why in Market Selection

The organizational routines governing the search and selection of markets and projects, up to this point

in the company’s history, had been more influenced by know-who rather than a deep understanding of

know-why. The company’s decision into entering the German market was not by a thorough analysis

of the European market, but rather it had been a market that Henrik had become familiar with due to

projects setup through their contacts at Vestas or through key customers.

As GWP was searching for new markets, Vestas again was a major source of gaining market

knowledge. “Vestas had an eye on Bulgaria- that it could be an interesting market,” says Hanne “And

that was our motivation for going into Bulgaria (HR Interview).” In addition, the Bulgarian market

was attractive since it was a new EU member state; its electricity market was fairly liberalized, and had

a relatively well-functioning legal system. Without scanning much beyond the Bulgarian market, GWP

committed to the area and began searching for projects.

In 2007 they began their first project in Bulgaria, the Long Man project involving five V90

2MW Vestas turbines. The project was acquired at the end of the Greenfield phase of development i.e.

the project had a permission to build, the environmental and wind assessment had been performed and

a preliminary grid connection agreement was in place. However, as construction was underway, GWP

learned of a problem developing with their grid connection. It transpired that the grid, which was

operated by two separate companies one at the national and the other on the local level, were not

coordinating effectively with each other regarding the amount of grid connection agreements being

promised. In effect the two companies, due to poor communication, had unknowingly over promised

access to the grid beyond the grid’s actual capacity. As a result, GWP’s grid agreement had been

revoked.

The problem that they were facing with the grid, according to Michael Nyman, was not just an

isolated event that concerned them, but was fast becoming a common problem amongst wind

developers operating in Bulgaria. The situation was fast damaging the reputation of Bulgarian wind

market.

“It is not healthy for the industry,” says Michael Nyman, “not even the country because it

has given Bulgaria a terrible reputation on the market. They say the grid connection in

Bulgaria it’s terrible, just drop it. Everybody now knows this is the case (BD Interview).”


After significant amount of lobbying to the Ministry of Energy in Bulgaria, a solution to the problem

was finally put forth. The grid was going to be reinforced substantially at the 110 kw level in order to

support the new growth of wind energy projects in the country. In addition, GWP would be allowed

access to the grid; however, they would only be allowed to transmit at half capacity for the next two

years until the new grid infrastructure had been put into place.

The misfortunes that transpired in Bulgaria brought about a greater awareness of the processes

involved in the search and selection of new markets and projects. In order to take what they have

learned from the Bulgarian market, GWP established the Business Development Department(BDD).

The emergence of BDD saw the organization combining knowledge that was derived from know-who

with a deeper investigation of the know-why’s in selecting markets. As Michael Nymann, Business

Development Manager explains,

“Business development is the development of new markets, meaning following up on

overall development of the wind industry and our focus is still on the European market,

but of course we can see some trends coming up- we can see that these markets are now

moving, we also hear some things from our colleagues at Vestas also from other

developers- saying that something is moving in these markets now. Based on this

information we are trying to evaluate what could be potential markets for Global Wind

Power. So we are more or less correcting information, investigating a little deeper,

finding out what is the feed-in tarrif system, if there is any system. Is it market price or is

it with subsidiary. How is the structure from that part? How is the legal structure, and

how is it doing business in that market (BD Interview2)?”

One of the first markets to be selected by combining know-who with know-why was Romania. As

Michal exclaims,

“The Romanian market was selected from not a coincidence point of view as it was with

Bulgaria and France…The reason we chose Romania was-actually it was around two and

a half years ago. … And at that time we had around 8-10 markets that we were looking


at. Basically what is the feed in tariff system, what is the legislation, and what is the wind

potential in these market. And that was made with a Balance Scorecard (BD Interview).”

4.7 Expansion of the Business Model: New Customers and acquisition bring about new competencies

Aside from the misfortunes arising from the Bulgarian market, 2007 marked a positive milestone for

GWP. The sale of an entire project was made to Allianz, an institutional investor. The sale was

important because the relationship would instigate the idea of how to grow the company even further.

The high growth that they experienced during the first few years was now beginning to plateau. This

was due to the fact that continuing the high rates of growth was contingent upon the ability of the

company to finance an ever expanding portfolio of projects, a proposition that was impossible to

perform due to the capital constraints under the current business model which involved the purchasing

and developing of projects prior to the selling. As Michael Nymann explains,

“Right now we are more or less in the situation where we have to have the projects on

hand, but at the same time we do not have enough (capital) to have twenty projects ...so

we are trying to turn around the situation (BD Interview).”

In order for the company to continue to grow, the business model would have to change. The Allianz

project would prove integral in bringing about this change because it would be GWP’s first contact

with an investor who would have the means to purchase projects prior to implementing the Turnkey

Phase of Development rather than after; thus improving their liquidity position. As Michal exclaims,

We would just like to sell Global Wind Power as a turnkey provider of wind projects and

then afterwards go find these projects and make the implementation. But today the market

is that they say, we don’t want to talk to you, Global Wind Power, before you have an

identified project, you could tell us exactly what is the wind, what is the investment in

total and so on and so on (BD Interveiw).”

Developing a close interaction with Allianz would improve GWP’s capabilities in servicing a large and

professional organization and pave the way to their new business vision. As Hanne exclaims, “ they


(Allianz) were demanding more professionalism from GWP and it was really our way of developing.

That someone really needed that we were in front (HR Interview).”

The expansion of the customer segment groups from private investors to include institutional

and industrial investors were made at the right time. In 2008 when the financial crisis occurred, it was

the first time GWP did not generate any Fall sales from private investors.

Another milestone occurred for GWP in 2009. Through Henrik’s developer network, GWP had

been approached with the opportunity to acquire the French Greenfield Developer, VentInvest. This

acquisition brought about the realization that Greenfield Development was important for their overall

business strategy of migrating institutional and industrial customers to commit to projects earlier on in

the value chain by providing both greater flexibility in markets while reducing costs in starting wind

projects. As a result, Global Wind Power for the first time was able to provide all product/services

across the entire windfarm development value chain.

4.8 Summary

The longitudinal case of Global Wind Power as described above demonstrates the co-evolution of both

DUI and STI innovating routines and the role of such routines in producing process and product/service

innovations at Global Wind Power. This co-evolution is traced early on through the competence

building habits of Henrik Amby where know-what and know-who were later proceeded by know-how

and know-why. At the level of the organization, learning habits had provided the basis for the

establishment of some of the early learning routines. In particular, the ProPartner concept, which

emphasized the importance of interacting with suppliers when solving organizational problems, was

derived from the personal relationships built between Henrik and key Vestas employees. The

importance of which was diffused across the organization as a ‘rule of thumb.’ One of the finding that

relates more generally to the literature on organizational routines and dynamic capabilities is the

proposition that not only are simple heuristics and ‘rules of thumb’ important in the fastest

changing industries/sectors but more endogenously may be utilized by firms when uncertainty

surrounds the firm’s initial strategic position. Simple rules of thumb and heuristic may operate as


simple ‘sense making’ mechanisms that are used to cope with such uncertainty rather than overly

routinizing.

The TCM department, which represented GWP’s first product/service innovation, emerged

based on the DUI mode of learning involving the interaction with lead private investors/customers.

Interaction with customers, when seen according to the innovation process, provided the basis for the

search and selection of innovative opportunities. Consequently, this entailed the greater need to

connect to the STI mode of learning during the implementation. This observation is consistent with

the proposition developed in Jensen et.al (2004, 2007) regarding DUI firms utilization of the STI

mode of learning in expanding their opportunities for potential solutions. Today both DUI and STI

learning routines are involved in the continuous development of TCM along the entire innovation

process.

In conjunction with the development of TCM, greater flexibility in the search for windfarm

projects was needed. This entailed the organizational expansion of activities into the Turnkey phase of

development. Early employees, which had previous work experience in the Turnkey phase of

development while working at Vindkraft Nord, were able to utilize such knowledge (know-what and

know-who) during the initial expansion into Turnkey. As Turnkey, became of greater importance,

greater emphasis was placed on deepening the STI modes of learning. In particular, GWP began the

internal hiring of civil, electrical, and concrete engineers as well as wind specialist (which now

comprises the Product Development Department today) to support project management activities. Since

GWP does not perform the actual construction and electrical works themselves, an important aspect of

the STI mode of learning has been to learn through the application of the materials made available

for tender (rules as procedures); while using site management experience (DUI learning) as a

feedback mechanism in which the organization learns and adapts. Today, Turnkey is another area of

expertise where project and site management competencies are packaged as service products in their

own right and are even being purchased by Vestas to support windfarm development activities with

their customers.

The emergence of the Business Development Department, whose function is to evaluate

country markets and to induce change in internal and external business processes arose out of the

need to balance market knowledge derived from Know-Who with techniques in determining Know-

Why. Prior to establishing the Business Development department, GWP was heavily reliant on gaining


market knowledge through Vestas and through their Wind Farm Developer network. Problem

occurrences in Bulgaria, in regards to the grid connection, brought about greater attention on the need

to systematically evaluate markets rather than relying on the market knowledge derived from Vestas

and their developer network alone. A possible proposition for future studies from this example is

that not only does the combination of DUI to include STI relate to expanding the search for

potential solutions but that the combination allows for greater certainty in terms of selection.

Lastly, the Greenfield product/service innovation emerged largely based on Know-Who. Henrik

through networking became familiar with the French Greenfield Developer VentInvest. VentInvest,

having spent nearly 4 years in gaining the permissions to build, was nearly at the completion of their

Greenfield Development phase where permission had been granted for the erection of over 200 MW.

Instead of simply purchasing the permissions to build, GWP decided to purchase the entire company.

Purchasing the company as whole in a sense meant that they could get the Greenfield capabilities of the

staff in France for free. This decision, however, was not necessarily based purely on the need to acquire

Greenfield capabilities, since GWP had employees that could potentially perform Greenfield.

Moreover, the lesson taken from GWP from the acquisition was that, focusing on Greenfield

Development was important in their overall strategy, a strategy to improve their liquidity position by

focusing on Institutional and Industrial Customers that could potentially commit to projects earlier in

the development.

71 5. CASE SUVEY EVIDENCE

5. CASE SUVEY EVIDENCE Learning Routines Distributed Across the Organization

The previous section chronicled the emergence of product, process, and service innovations in

relationship to the general modes of innovating and learning, DUI & STI. This section in the case

study will now shift its focus on presenting the more specific learning and innovating routines

established within GWP, as identified through interviews and surveys administered at both the manager

and employee level. The section will highlight how such specific routines aid in the current innovative

capabilities of the firm as well as identifying in which ways GWP can augment their innovative

capabilities along the innovation process involving search, selection, implementation, and capture.


5.1 Introduction

The specific routines/indicators for DUI and STI modes of innovating provided by Jensen et. al. (2004,

2007) provided a departure point for identifying the innovating routines utilized at GWP (see Table 2

below). Table 2: DUI & STI Routines

DUI Indicators/routines

Autonomous Groups E-2,3,4, Interdisciplinary Workgroups Quality Circles Systems for collecting proposals Integration of Functions Softened Demarcations Cooperation with customers

STI Indicator/routines

Expenditures on R&D Cooperation with researchers The employment of scientifically trained

personal includes BA/MA/PHD in Natural Sciences

As highlighted in the methods section, autonomous groups, interdisciplinary workgroups, and quality

circles represent a repertoire of innovating routines, that overall, bolster learning by ‘doing’, ‘using’,

and ‘interacting’ by promoting the decentralization of decision making and problem solving.

Interdisciplinary workgroups and quality circles also have the added benefit of combining and

recombining knowledge distributed across a multitude of job functions and departments. Likewise,

systems for collecting proposals enhance the ability of the organization to continuously learn by

placing greater attention to problems and potential solutions.

Discussions with both the head of HR and a leading HR consultant at GWP revealed that while

GWP does not utilize formal autonomous groups, formal interdisciplinary groups, and quality circles,

the ways in which GWP conducts work reflects DUI learning at the cross functional and cross

departmental level as well as discretionary learning at both the individual and collective levels.


In order to test the extent in which GWP’s way of conducting work reflects routines that aid in

DUI learning, the following two areas were addressed in both employee and managerial level

questionnaires. These include questions relating to:

i. the level of discretionary learning

ii. and the nature and purpose of cross functional and cross departmental interactions

5.1.2 Testing Discretionary Learning

In order to identify the degree of discretionary learning which underlines the benefits attained through

autonomous groups, cross functional/departmental groups, and quality circles, the following three

questions were posed to the employees.

Table 3: Questions for Testing Discretionary Learning

2a. I hvilken grad kan du selv vælge eller ændre: - Indholdet af dine arbejdsopgaver?

Respondents PercentI høj grad 7 21.2%I nogen grad 21 63.6%I mindre grad 5 15.2%Slet ikke 0 0.0%Total 33 100.0%

2b. I hvilken grad kan du selv vælge eller ændre: - Den rækkefølge, du udfører arbejdsopgaver i?


2c. I hvilken grad kan du selv vælge eller ændre: - Hvordan du udfører dine arbejdsopgaver?

Respondents PercentI høj grad 17 51.5%I nogen grad 15 45.5%I mindre grad 1 3.0%Slet ikke 0 0.0%Total 33 100.0%Source: Own


Questions 2a-2c, seen in Table 3, reflects the manner and the degree in which Global Wind

Power employees’ have discretion over their work. This is measured by three dimensions which

include discretion i. over the contents of their work, ii. the order in which work is accomplished, and

iii. the means(i.e. how) in which work is accomplished. It is interesting to note that nearly all

employees responded to having either some or high degrees of discretion representing 85%, 97%, and

97% of respondents across questions 2a, 2b, and 2c, respectively.

Among the three indicators the areas in which employees has had the least degree of influence

was over the contents of their work where only 21.2% of respondents reported to having a high degree

of discretion. This is fairly low in relationship to the 60.6 % and 51.5% of respondents who reported

to having a high degree of influence over the order and how work is accomplshed seen respectively in

questions 2b and 2c. Nonetheless, the results indicate that moderate to high levels of discretionary

decision making are present within an overwhelming majority of employees at GWP suggesting

‘learning by doing and using’ take place.

5.1.3 Testing employee interactions at the cross functional and cross departmental levels

To identify if the employees at GWP communicate across departments and functions and that such

interactions contributes to combining knowledge in problem solving activities the following two part

question were posed.

Table 4: Questions Testing Cross-Funtional/Departmental Learning

4a. Er det nogle gange nødvendigt at kontakte kolleger fra andre afdelinger eller med andre arbejdsfunktioner i arbejdstiden?

Respondents PercentJa 33 100.0%Nej 0 0.0%Total 33 100.0%

4b. Hvad er ofte årsagen til at kontakte kolleger fra andre afdelinger eller med andre arbejdsfunktioner i arbejdstiden? [Sæt gerne flere krydser]

Respondents PercentKollektiv problemløsning på tværs af afdelinger 25 75.8%


For at få eller give informationer 32 97.0%Andre årsager (uddyb venligst 4 12.1%Total 33 100.0%

Hvad er ofte årsagen til at kontakte kolleger fra andre afdelinger eller med andre arbejdsfunktioner i arbejdstiden? [Sæt gerne flere krydser] - Andre årsager (uddyb venligstOpgaver for andre afdelinger"Speciallist"Source: Own

As shown in question 4a in Table 4 above, 100% of employees surveyed at GWP communicate with

each other at both the cross functional and cross departmental levels. Moreover, question 4b identifies

the purpose of such inter-functional and inter-departmental communication. While 97% of those

surveyed reported to communicate across organizational lines as means of receiving and providing

information, the most salient result pertaining to the ability of the organization to combine knowledge

across the organization relates to the 75.8% of respondents that state that the purpose of intra-

organizational communication is due to collective problem solving. The results from question 4a and

4b therefore indicate that ‘learning by interacting’ takes place and contributes to problem-solving in

daily activities.

5.1.4 Discretionary Learning and Cross-functional learning across country units

As mentioned in the methods section, staff situated in Germany, France, Bulgaria, and Romania were

unavailable to partake in the questionnaire; however, interviews with HR as well as responses derived

from survey questions relating to organizational changes (see Management Survey question 21)

identified that great efforts have been made to decentralize decision making from the head quarters in

Denmark to the country units. As Hanne, HR Manager explains,

“people here will say that there has been a lot of changes lately at GWP… Before, we we’re

managing projects in Bulgaria from Denmark. We were … taking project managers and putting

them in the countries and erecting turbines. And it just didn’t work (HR Interview 2).”


Today project management and site management activities are conducted by local employees with only

support functions being performed in Denmark. This transition has aided the organization two-fold.

Firstly, the movement to decentralize decision making to the country units provided faster and greater

manoeuvrability in the given country’s institutional context (BD Interview). Employing local labour

allows for the better utilization of local employee contacts (know-who) as well as knowledge of local

customs and government institutional formalities (HR Interview 2). Secondly, in countries in Eastern

Europe for example, the cost of hiring Project and Site Managers are less expensive. Thus, there is a

cost advantage that can be associated with the transition (HR Interview 2).

The transition, however; has created complications regarding the ability for interactive learning

and overall communication at the international level between support functions in Denmark and the

country units (HR Interview 2). According to Hanne, cultural and language barriers as well as

ambiguity regarding mother/daughter company roles has created knowledge silos to develop. As

Hanne comments,

“It’s not only about national cultures, it’s also about being a mother company and daughters

and that could be the main challenge. That -why do we (referring to the country units) have this

mother company with a lot of costs, and we are out here earning all the money and they are just

using all the money. To have this big overview seeing, What is the mother company giving into

the daughters? Why is the mother company demanding that they want some reporting, for

instance? Why is it important that we know how much money is being used every month? Just

all these really banal issues. Sometimes it seems like that they are looking at the cost of this

mother company and questioning where are they using all this money. They don’t see the point.

And that is really our challenge, that we didn’t communicate that good about it. We didn’t

make them understand (HR Interview 2).”

One of the implications of this chasm between Head Quarters and the country units is that instead of

seeking knowledge internally in the company through the supporting departments, the country units are

seeking ‘specialist’ knowledge in their respective countries (BD interview). In addition, the Sales,

Marketing, and Finance departments which require information from the country units to perform their

activities are met with country unit staff members that are less cooperative in producing such

information.


Thus, in regards to discretionary learning and cross functional communications at the

country unit level, discretionary learning has improved through the decentralization of country units

however interactive learning between the Danish departments and the country units has suffered.

5.1.5 Systems for collecting proposals

To identify whether GWP made use of systems for collecting proposals, two sets of questions

were asked at both the manager and employee levels (See Table 5 and Table 6 respectively). At the

management level, the following question was posed:

Table 5: Questions Testing ‘Systems for Collecting Proposals’

Mgmt: Indsamler og evaluerer GWP forslag fra ansatte?

Respondents PercentJa, fortløbende 1 12.5%Ja, periodisk 5 62.5%Nej 2 25.0%Total 8 100.0%Source: Own

Out of the eight managers that were surveyed 6 responded in the affirmative, stating that employee

proposals are collected and evaluated. Out of these 6, 5 managers reported that proposals were only

collected and evaluated infrequently, while only 1 manager reported that proposals were being

collected and evaluated on a regular basis the remaining 2 managers reported no system for collecting

proposals.

At the employee level a similar question was posed, asking whether or not employees during

the time that they had worked at GWP had tried to get their managers to support new ideas (see 8c

below). Out of the 33 employees surveyed 26 employees, representing 78.8%, responded in the

affirmative stating that during the course of their employment they had tried to gain support from

management in pursuing new ideas.

Table 6: Employee Initiative for Generating Proposals


8c. Har du i løbet af den tid du har arbejdet for GWP: - Prøvet at få din leder til at støtte nye ideer?

Respondents PercentJa 26 78.8%Nej 7 21.2%Total 33 100.0%Source: Own

The results therefore indicate that their exist a means for collecting proposals involving a fairly high

majority of employees that have previously approached managers with ideas and management staff

that evaluates such proposals. However, the results also indicate that the evaluation of such

proposals is largely performed on an irregular basis.

5.1.6 Employee’s Input During Significant Organizational Changes

While the previous finding above point to an organization with high discretionary learning and fairly

high levels of involvement in pursuing new ideas related to daily activity, the following set of questions

pertaining to employee involvement in significant organizational changes however indicate that lower

levels of participation exist. To limit the discussion, I will only comment on the results relating to

changes involving work methods and product/services, although the other types of significant changes

listed below also bare similar tendencies.

Question 5 presented in Table 7 below displays the number of respondents that have stated that

significant changes to work methods and product/services have taken place.

Table 7: Organizational Changes

5. Har nogle af følgende organisatoriske ændringer fundet sted i virksomheden i den tid, du har arbejdet for GWP? [Sæt gerne flere krydser]

Respondents PercentImplementering af nye eller markant ændrede eksisterende IT systemer 8 24.2%Omrokering af ansatte 32 97.0%Implementering af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende arbejdsmetoder 20 60.6%Indføring af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende produkter eller serviceydelser 21 63.6%Andet[uddyb venligst]: 1 3.0%Ingen ændringer 0 0.0%Total 33 100.0%

Har nogle af følgende organisatoriske ændringer fundet sted i virksomheden i den tid, du har arbejdet for GWP? [Sæt gerne flere krydser] - Andet[uddyb venligst]:På vej fra "tømmervirksomhed" til koncern


Source: Own

Out of the 33 employees surveyed 20 employees (60.6%) stated to having significant changes in work

methods while 21 employees (63.6%) reported to having significant changes to product/services.

However, when employees were asked if they had taken part in the discussion regarding such

significant changes as seen below in Table 8, only 8 employees claimed to have participated in the

discussions regarding changes to work methods and only 6 employees participated in discussions

regarding significant changes to product/services.

Table 8: Employee Involvement in Significant Organizational Changes

Types of Organizational Changes 5. # of Emp. reporting significant change

6a. # of Emp involved in discussions

6b. # of Emp involved in decision making

Implementering af nye eller markant ændrede eksisterende IT systemer

8 3 0

Omrokering af ansatte 32 6 1Implementering af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende arbejdsmetoder

20 8 2

Indføring af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende produkter eller serviceydelser

21 6 2

Andet[uddyb venligst]: 1 2 2Deltog ikke 0 16 22

Total 33 32 29Source: Own

In similarly low number, when employees were asked if they took part in the final decision regarding

such organizational changes, even lower response rates resulted. As seen above in Table 8 only 2

respondents reported to participate in the decision making of work methods and only 2 respondents

reported to taking part in the decision regarding changes to existing product and services. Participation

rates of employees in both the discussion and decision of significant changes seems rather low

especially when 78.8% of employees state that such organizational changes have an influence over

their daily work as seen in question 6c in Table 9 below.Table 9: Effect of Organizational Changes on Employee Tasks

6c. Havde nogle af disse ændringer en indflydelse på dine arbejdsopgaver?


Respondents PercentJa 26 78.8%Nej 7 21.2%

The results, therefore indicate that while GWP has high discretionary learning in daily

activities, employees have less discretion when it come to significant organizational changes.

5.1.7 Integration of Functions and Softened Demarcations.

Recent integration of functions has occurred in the past 6 months. The integration of functions

pertains to the combination of the sales department, the project management department, and project

acquisition managers. The integration of these three functions, which is now under the Project Support

department, has been developed in order to better advise institutional and industrial customers when

engaging in project activities earlier on in the value chain. This integration has been critical to

providing more timely advice targeted at Institutional and Industrial customers whom may enter into an

agreement with GWP based on preferences regarding certain global markets, which requires the

expertise of an Acquisitions Manager. They may also enter a project with certain infrastructural

provisions for the build or through the use of self procured turbines (Semi-Turnkey), which go into the

detailed planning performed by Project Managers. These customer driven criteria have bearing on the

overall sales agreements that are to be established. The overall effect of the integration is a more rapid

response to Institutional and Industrial customer needs and demands.

5.1.8 Interacting with External Sources

Thus far, most of the results presented relate to the role of organizations in capturing knowledge held

internally within the organization as well as the ability of the organization to combine such knowledge

towards innovative ends. The results presented here will identify whether GWP utilizes external

sources when learning and innovating. Table 10 below presents the results relating to the degree in

which GWP cooperates with external actors for the purposes of gaining knowledge. Jensen et.al (2004,

2007) identifies the significance of collaborating with customers in relationship to product/service


innovation. Here, I have expanded this list of innovative routines to include collaborations with

knowledge-centers, consultants, and suppliers. I have done so in keeping with additional indicators of

innovative organizations cited in the DISKO survey.

Table 10: Cooperation with External Sources of KnowledgeI hvilken grad har Global Wind Power udviklet nært samarbejde med:

I høj grad

I nogen grad

I mindre grad

Slet ikke

Ved ikke

8a Videnscentre (ex universiteter eller teknologiske institutioner) for tilegnelse eller deling af viden?

0.0% 12.5% 62.5% 0.0% 25.0%

8b Konsulentvirksomheder eller juridisk rådgivning for at tilegne sig viden? 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0%

8c Leverandører på det grundlag at tilegne sig og dele viden? 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0%

8d Kunder på det grundlag at tilegnelse sig viden vedrørende kunders behov? 37.5% 37.5% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0%Source: Manager Survey Questions 8a-8d

Among the four external sources of knowledge, Consultancy businesses (which include legal

consultants), Suppliers, and Customers are the most active sources of external knowledge managers

reporting to cooperate to high degree in each. Cooperating with consultancy businesses represent the

most utilized inter-organizational learning routine used by GWP, with 62.5% of managers reporting to

cooperate with consultant at a high degree and 25% of managers reporting to cooperate in some degree.

Based on the interviews with the Business Development Manager and HR, the types of

consultants utilized are both legal consultants, due to their need in overseeing contractual agreements

and assessment of new laws and regulations, as well as engineering consultants used in assessing

critical technical areas within the value chain. It is also interesting to note, that while cooperation with

Consultants is high, cooperation with Knowledge Centers (i.e. Universities and technological institutes)

is fairly low, with 0% of managers reporting to cooperate with knowledge centers to a high degree,

12.5% of managers reporting to cooperate at some degree, and 62.5 % of managers claiming to

cooperate at less degree. The high use of consultants juxtaposed to knowledge-centers, perhaps

suggest that consultants act as a substitute for knowledge-centers as a source of accessing external

know-why at GWP.

The second most commonly used source of external knowledge at GWP is suppliers. According

to question 8c in Table 10 above, 50% of managers reported to interact with suppliers to a high degree,

while 25% stated to interact with suppliers to some degree. As described in the historical perspective

of GWP, suppliers in particular Vestas, play a major role as a source of external knowledge.


According to Michael Nymann, Head of Business Development, suppliers do not just provide

knowledge regarding the technical possibilities regarding the wind turbines but they also provide

market knowledge. As Michal explains,

“That is where our very trustful relationship with Vestas actually comes into play, because they

are trying to support us because they know that Vestas in itself are not able to do Turnkey

solutions for investors, but they are in contact with a lot of these so called industrial and

institutional customers. Based on their contact with these customers they are trying as much as

possible to give us a picture and give us all the information that we need and say, these could

be potential customers for you in these areas and these areas. Based on that, we are today

trying to get in contact with them, to convince them that together with Vestas, we can provide

them with wind projects that they ask (BD Interview.”

The role of Vestas, in defining the value sets for industrial and institutional customers may

explain why the interaction with customers, seen in question 8d above, ranks lower than the interaction

with Consultants and Suppliers. Based on question 8d in Table 10 above, only 37.5% of managers

claimed to interact with Customers to a high degree while another 37.5% of managers stated to interact

with customers to some degree. Given that the major strategic challenge facing the organization relates

to the ability of the organization to move industrial and institutional customers upstream in the value

chain to either the Greenfield or pre-Turnkey phase of development, gaining a deeper understanding of

customer values gained from primary knowledge of customers’ needs seems necessary to inform the

creation of new services and products.

The results of the survey thus indicate that GWP makes use of external source which include

cooperation with consultants, suppliers, and customers. However, cooperation with customers being

the least of the three utilized external learning routines could be strengthened through greater

efforts to pursue primary knowledge concerning customers rather than relying on supplier

knowledge alone.


5.1.8.1 Ability to access, create, and use Global Know-Why

Several areas contribute to GWP’s ability to make use of global know-why. First, civil, electrical, and

concrete engineers are hired in both the TCM and Product Development departments. The Product

Development department is responsible for activities pertaining to the analysis of the construction and

electrical works, as well as aiding in the preparation of the material made available for tender. They

also aid in the absorptive capacity of the organization allowing for greater access to relevant external

specialist.

As highlighted in the previous subsection, the emergence of the TCM department brought about

a greater need in the organization to hire scientifically trained personal in the engineering disciplines.

Today the majority of engineers hired in the organization are connected with both TCM and the

Product Development department.


5.2 Role of DUI and STI routines in Search

Based on the results of the survey seen above, the following section will consider the role of the

identified DUI and STI routines on the phases involved in the innovation process. As highlighted in the

literature section the Search phase in the innovation process pertains to the ability of the organization to

identify potential opportunities for innovation. These opportunities can arrive based on problems

arising from experience (DUI) or by the application of techno-scientific knowledge (STI). Based on

the results of the survey and interviews presented in the preceding section, GWP’s ability to identify

potential innovations in relation to these two dimensions appear strong in certain areas, while weak in

others.

5.2.1 Internal Search

Moderate to High Discretionary learning amongst employees in Danish offices allows for greater

problem identification leading to the instigation of search. Internal search is supported by strong cross

functional interaction among departments located in Denmark, allowing for more robust solutions.

However, the fairly high discretionary and interactive learning identified at GWP appears to be mostly

restricted to search regarding daily activities, as suggested by low participation in the discussion and

decision regarding significant process, product, and service changes. As such, the types of innovation

arising from such learning routines may pertain to smaller incremental innovations. Furthermore,

employee proposals are collected infrequently, limiting the chances of identifying larger incremental or

radical innovations that may arrive from proposal programs that both encourage greater employee

participation as well as more frequent monitoring of proposals.

While interactive learning across department and functions in Denmark are strong, interactive

learning between country units and head quarters in Denmark are rather weak. This may have the

affect of disconnecting links between both problem areas and sources of innovation across countries.

5.2.2 External Search


Interaction with Consultants, Suppliers, and Customers contribute to GWP’s ability to seek out sources

of innovation externally. When the knowledge held externally is techno-scientific knowledge, GWP’s

employement of scientifically trained personal i.e. Civil, Electrical, and Concrete Engineers provide the

absorptive capacity needed to interpret, use, and recombine such knowledge to innovative ends.

Although, GWP has reported to cooperate with customers for knowledge purposes, the degree of

interaction for the purposes of obtaining knowledge is lower amongst institutional and industrial

customers than say suppliers and consultants. Given that GWP’s greatest strategic challenge is to

attract industrial and institutional customers to commit to wind farm projects at an earlier stage of

development, gaining greater customer insight may be needed to develop the product, process, and

service innovations that can induce early customer involvement.

5.3 Role of DUI and STI routines in Selection and Implementation

The selection phase in the innovation process involves the activities pertaining to what innovative

changes are going to take place and why. Considering the level of selection in relation to the degree of

innovativeness is important in this regard. As suggested in the literature section, routines or decision

rules change at varying rates depending upon the generality or specificity of the change (Cyert &

March, 1963?). When the innovations are small incremental innovations, little management support is

needed. Decision can be made more or less at the individual and group level. The presence of

discretionary and cross functional learning within the organization can enable effective decision in such

context. In contrast, when selection decisions pertain to significant incremental or radical innovations,

management support may often be required in the decision making, since the selection may have wide

ranging systemic effects across a multitude of functions and departments. Management therefore has a

role in ascertaining whether the proposed innovations fit with their strategic endeavours (Tidd &

Bessant, 2009) and to signal the importance of such change which can aid in the overall acceptability of

the innovation.

This however does not suggest that employee level involvement is unnecessary when dealing

with larger changes. Employees need to ultimately ‘buy-in’ to the proposed changes (Tidd & Bessant,

2009). In addition, employees contribute to the incremental innovation during the diffusion of the

innovation across the organization. One of the areas that would greatly benefit GWP in increasing their


innovative capability for significant incremental and radical innovation would be to increase employee

involvement in the discussion and decision making during significant changes, thus creating greater

linkages between strategy and daily practice.

5.4 Role of DUI and STI routines in Capture

The capture phase in the innovation process pertains to the ability of the organization to apply double

loop learning, in essence learning to learn. Double loop learning involves identifying areas in the

learning process that could fundamentally change the organization’s norms, policies, and objectives

(Argyris & Schon, 1978). It requires the ability of the organization to both learn and forget at a greater

level. The combination of DUI routines and STI routines is particularly important in this regard. The

STI routines can aid the ability of learning and forgetting by identifying the reasons for such change.

The emergence of the Business Development Department with its role in identifying both the reasons

for market selection as well as the reasons for developing greater linkages in internal and external

processes is a step forward in this direction. However, in order to distil the reasons for change requires

an evaluation of the current experiences and knowledge held by employees and external contacts thus,

giving importance to the role of DUI routines. In addition, as mentioned above employee knowledge

and experiences are important in the implementation of such proposed changes since they contribute to

incremental innovation during the diffusion.

87 6. CONCLUSION

6. CONCLUSION

The concept of organizational routines as put forth by Nelson & Winter (1982) was a monumental

advancement for economist and strategic managers alike by promising an avenue to understand how

organizations differ, how they change, and how such differences contribute to the innovative

capabilities of the firm. However, definitional ambiguity in the literature has slowed down such

progress, leading to few empirical investigations that help in understanding how organizations change

and innovate. This thesis has attempted to answer the call for more empirical work by presenting an

explanatory case study on how innovating routines have influenced the emergence and continuous

development of process, product, and service innovations at Global Wind Power. In addition, this

thesis also identifies which routines could be adopted at GWP that would allow the organization to

increase their innovative capabilities?

It has done so by considering three complementary perspectives that aid in analysis. The first

perspective was to acknowledge that adopting a multi-definitional view of routines based on

organizational rules, dispositions, and behaviour allows for the operationalization of the routine

concept to capture the transformation; while reducing conceptual ambiguity through the identification

of the definition of the routine being evoked in the analysis. The second perspective used was intended

to aid the analysis from a functional vantage point, by viewing innovation as the outcome of search,

selection, implementation, and capture routines in the firm. The third and last perspective distinguishes

between two modes of learning-DUI and STI learning, whereby firms that combined routines from

both modes of learning has been shown to be the most innovative in survey studies. As such the

distinction provides a baseline in which to discuss heterogeneity in firm-level innovativeness.

Remaining sub-questions in this line of research was to identify Why the combination of DUI and STI

enhances firm innovativeness and in particular How the combination of DUI and STI modes of learning

influenced the innovation process involving search, selection, implementation, and capture?

6.1 Key Theoretical Findings

88 6. CONCLUSION

Based on such an approach, an Explanatory Case Study on Global Wind Power was performed in order

to address the aforementioned research question with the aim at analytical generalization in connection

to theory verification and theory generation.

6.1.1 Theory Verification

The propositions developed in section 2.10, which provided explanations on why the combination of

STI and DUI routines contributes to greater innovative performance, were used as a basis for theory

verification via pattern matching against the case evidence. These propositions included:

Proposition 1: Firms involved in STI learning adopt DUI routines due to greater transformation pressures from both technological change and changes in customer demand.

Proposition 2: Firms involved in STI learning adopt DUI routines in order to better link to customer demands.

Proposition 3: Firms involved in DUI mode of learning adopt the STI mode of learning to increase the possibilities of techno-scientific search

Based on the case study, Proposition 1 above could not be supported by the case evidence. The

significant changes that have taken place in GWP were primarily driven from demand driven changes

rather than technological change. The technological changes derived from suppliers and external

specialist has had at best only a marginal effect on the organizational changes that have taken place.

A similar conclusion can also be made about Proposition 2. Although there are areas in the

organization where STI learning occurs and there are also areas in the organization where DUI routines

have been established that better link to customer demand preferences, the DUI routines established

have not been developed significantly out of the push from STI learning. Rather the opposite has

occurred. The inability to support Propostion 1 and 2 could be primarily due to GWP’s overall

orientation as a DUI based firm first and foremost that has ultimately connected to the STI mode of

learning secondly.

Lastly, Proposition 3 is highly supported by the case evidence with the replication of the pattern

in multiple instances. The emergence of the TCM department, which was instigated through the search

and selection of opportunities performed through ‘learning by interacting’ with private investors

89 6. CONCLUSION

ultimately required greater connection to the STI mode of learning during the implementation. In

particular, it required the hiring of engineers specialized in Windturbine Mechanics and specialist in

dealing with Windturbine Information Systems. Similar patterns in connecting to the STI mode of

learning also occurred in relationship to both Turnkey and Greenfield Development which deepened

the role of the STI mode of learning through the hiring of civil, concrete, and electrical engineers as

well as wind specialist.

6.1.2 Generation of Propositions

In addition to testing propositions, the case evidence also allows for the abstraction of several testable

propositions for future studies. These propositions can be grouped into two categories. The first

pertains to the literature on routines and dynamic capabilities generally and the second relates to why

the combination of STI and DUI allow for greater innovative capabilities.

6.1.2.1 Proposition relating to the literature on Organiztional Routines & Dynamic Capabilities

A proposition that can aid the literature on organizational routines and dynamic capabilities can be

derived from the example of the emergence of the ProPartner concept. The ProPartner concept which

emphasized routines in connection to external strategic alliance was first diffused across the

organization as a ‘rule of thumb’ or as a simple heuristic rather than through the more routinized

‘routine as procedures’ or ‘dispositions. A proposition that can be applied in future research is that

simple heuristics and ‘rules of thumb’ are not only important in ‘high velocity’ industries/sectors to

deal with external uncertainty, as suggested by Eisenhardt &Martin(2000), but also may be present

in firms where internal uncertainty surrounds the firm’s initial strategic position. In this sense,

simple rules of thumb and heuristic may operate as simple ‘sense making’ mechanisms that for

example, may be a substitute for strategic planning and market analysis (i.e. routines as procedures for

attaining know-why).

6.1.2.2 Propositions for Combining DUI & STI

The first proposition pertaining to the benefits of combining DUI & STI is derived on the case

evidence pertaining to the continuous development of Turnkey. An important area in the ability to

90 6. CONCLUSION

perform turnkey related to the preparation of the materials made available for tender which required an

emphasis on the STI mode of learning to produce documents that specified how the build was to be

conducted. However learning from such rules as procedures was based in part on the experience of the

Site Management in the application of such rules which required the DUI mode of learning as a

feedback mechanism. Therefore, a possible proposition for further research is that firms utilizing

STI learning in the production of procedural rules may connect to the DUI mode of learning as a

source of learning feedbacks related to the use procedural rules.

A second proposition that can be derived from the case evidence pertains to the emergence of

the Business Development Department (BDD). Prior to the creation of the BDD, market and project

selection was based more on know-who rather than on know-why. After misfortunes that arose in

Bulgaria, greater emphasis was placed on systematically addressing which markets and projects to

choose and why. Therefore, a possible proposition for future studies from this example is that not

only does the combination of DUI to include STI relate to expanding the search for potential

solutions but that the combination allows for greater certainty in terms of selection.

6.2 Managerial Implications and Findings

In addition, the analysis of the case survey study identified the presence of specific learning routines

within Global Wind Power in order to understand how learning routines influence their innovative

capabilities currently as well as to identify potential areas for improvement. The results suggest that

the ability to use and combine both modes of learning is strong in certain areas along the innovation

process while rather weak in others. Among the areas in which the organization can enhance the

innovative capabilities of the firm are through creating greater interactive learning at the country unit

level, greater employee involvement in the matter of significant organizational changes to capture

incremental innovations, and greater focus on gaining primary knowledge in regards to institutional and

industrial customers’ needs as a way to inform the creation of new process, products, and services. The

use of the aforementioned DUI and STI learning routines in mitigating such problems; however, should

be interpreted as soft prescriptions not hard. The goal here has been primarily to inform management

of potential areas for improvement and not necessarily to promote the unwarranted use of innovative

practices regardless of organizational fit. The right tools for the job clearly matter and whether the

possible repertoire of tools presented here fit the job is up to the jobholder.

91 6. CONCLUSION

6.3 Limitations and Future Research

Furthermore, several limitations can be cited in this study regarding the methodological choice and

empirical context which, in conjunction with the propositions generated, may provide stimulus for

future research. Among the limitations, a greater robustness in the evidence could have been greatly

strengthened through the use of multiple case study research design, in that the replication of matched

patterns could have been identified across multiple organizational contexts. Secondly, a greater focus

on the industrial dynamics in relationship to the development of routines could have greatly enhanced

the role of industry structure on conduct and vice versa- this study only paid superficial mention to

such structures. Thirdly, the full operationalization of the routine concept through the multi-

definitional perspective was only partially applied. This was due to the limitations in gaining access to

the organization through observation. Similarly, limitations in the historical evidence, as provided by

the organization, only provided details in relationship to the entrepreneurial habits on organizational

routines to the neglect of evidence of routine formation based on other employees.

The distinction between DUI and STI modes of innovation are still relatively new and promise

and exciting area of inquiry. Questions regarding how and why such modes of learning are applied

across the innovation process are only beginning to be addressed. Possible inquiries into how modes of

learning are combined in different industries, sectors, and company size appear as potentially

interesting questions.

92 REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008) Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report Volume 13 Number 4 December 2008 544-559

Becker, Markus (2001): Empirical research on routines: The state of the art and its integration into the routine debate. submitted to the Nelson and Winter Conference, Aalborg, 12-15 June 2001

Becker, Markus (2004) Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 13, nr 4, pp 643-677

Burns, T., Stalker, G.M., (1961). The Management of Innovation. Tavistock, London.

Clark KB, Fujimoto T. (1991). Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA

Clegg, C., Axtell, C., Damodaran, L., Farby, B., Hull, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., Nicholls, J., Sell, R., Tomlinson, C., Ainger, A., Stewart, T., (1996). The performance of information technology and the role of human and organisational factors. Report to the ESRC, UK.

Cohen, N. J. (1984), "Preserved Learning Capacity in Amnesia: Evidence for Multiple Memory Systems," in Larry Squire and N. Butters (Eds.), Neuropsychology of memory. New York: Guilford Press, 88-103.

Cohen, Michael (1991) Individual Learning and Organizational Routine: Emerging Connections Author(s): Source: Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, Special Issue: Organizational Learning: Papers in Honor of (and by) James G. March (1991), pp. 135-139

Cohen, Michael and Paul Bacdayan (1994) 'Organizational Routines Are Stored as ProceduralMemory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study', Organization Science, 5, pp. 554-568.

Cohen, M., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., Warglien, M. & Winter, S. (1996): routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations: Contemporary Research Issues. Industrial and Corporate Change. Vol 5 nr 3 1996

Cyert, R. and J.G. March (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Second edition (1992), Oxford: Blackwell.

Dertoutzos, M.L., Lester, R.K., Solow, R.M., (1989). Made in America. The MIT-Press, Cambridge, MA.

93 REFERENCES

Dougherty D. (1992) Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. OrganizationScience 3: 179-202.

Egidi, M. (1996). Routines, hierarchies of problems procedural behavior: Some evidence from experiments. In K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perlman, & C. Schmidt (Eds.), The rational foundations of economic behavior. London: Macmillan.

Eisenhardt, K. and J. Martin, (2000), Dynamic Capabilities: What are they?, Strategic Management Journal, (21),pp.1105-1122

Feldman, Martha & Pentland, Brian (2003): Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Mar., 2003), pp. 94-118

Feldman, Martha (2003): A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 12, Nr 4, pp 727-752

Gittleman, M., Horrigan, M., Joyce, M., (1998). Flexible workplace practices: evidence from a nationally representative survey. Industrial and Labour Relations Review 52, 99–115.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Hansen MT. (1999) The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly (March) 44: 82-111.

Hartley, Jean (1994). Case studies in organizational research. In Catherine Cassell & Gillian Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research, a practical guide (pp.208-229). London: Sage.

Hartley, Jean (2004). Case study research. In Catherine Cassell & Gillian Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp.323-333). London: Sage

Helfat, CE. (1997) Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation. Strategic Management Journal 18(5): 339-360.

Helfat CE, Raubitschek RS. (2000) Product sequencing: co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic Management Journal 21(10-11): 961-979.

Hodgson, G.M. and T. Knudsen (2003a), ‘The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits and routines,’ Journal of Evolutionary Econmics, 14, pp. 281- 307

Hodgson, G.M. and T. Knudsen (2003b), ‘The replication of habits,’ mimeo, University of Herfordshire

94 REFERENCES

Hodgson, G.M. (2008), The Concept of a Routine’, in Markus C. Becker (ed.) (2008) Handbook of Organizational Routines (Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA: Edward Elgar), pp. 15-28

Hodgson, G.M. and T. Knudsen (2004), ‘The complex evolution of a simple traffic convention:the functions and implications of habit,’ Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 54, 19-47

Jensen M., Johnson B., Lorenz E. & Lundvall B.A. (2007), Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation Research Policy, Vol.36, pp.680-693.

Knudsen, T. (2002), ‘The significance of tacit knowledge in the evolution of language,’ Selection, 3, 93-112

Knudsen, Thorbjørn (2008): Organizational Routines in Evolutionary Theory, in Handbook of Organizational Routines, edited by Markus Becker pp. 125-151

Kvale, Steinar (1996). Interviews An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage Publications,

Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2008). InterViews. Second Edition: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Lam, A., (2005). Organizational innovation. In: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., Nelson, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press.

Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988) "Organizational Learning," Annual Review of Sociology (14), 1988, pp. 319-340.

Lundvall, B. Å and , Johnson, B., (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies 1, 23–42.

Lundvall, B. Å (1996) The Social Dimensions of the Learning Economy, DRUID WORKING PAPER NO.

96-1

March, J.G. and H. A. Simon (1958), Organizations, Second edition (1993), Oxford: Blackwell.

McNamara, C (1999). Basics of conducting focus groups. Available on internet:

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mintzberg, H., (1979). The Structuring of Organisation. Princeton University Press, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ.

95 REFERENCES

Morison, E.E. (1966), Men, Machine, and Modern Times, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Nelson, R. (2008). Routines as technologies and as organizational capabilities. In: Becker, M. & Lazaric, N. (Eds), Organizational Routines: Advancing Empirical Research. Edwards Elgar Publishing Limited, Massachusets pp 11-25

Nelson, R. & Sampat, B. (2001), ‘Making sense of institutions as factors shaping economic growth’

Journal of Economic Organization and Behaviour, 44, pp. 31-54

Nelson, R. & Winter, S. (1982) Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge Massachusetts

Osterman, P., (1994). How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it? Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47, 173–188.

Osterman, P., (2000). Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: trends in diffusion and effects on employee welfare. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 53, 179–196.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Pierce, J. L., Boerner, C., & Teece, D. J. (2002). Dynamic capabilities, competence and the behavioral theory of the firm. In M. Augier & J. G. March (Eds.), The economics of choice, change, and structure: Essays in honor of Richard M. Cyert. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

.Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. New York:

Harper Torchbooks

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor

Simon, Herbert (1955), 'A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice', Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 69:99-188

Stake, Robert E. (1995). The Art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Stake, Robert E. (2000). Case studies. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.435-453). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Szulanski G. (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 17: 27-43.

Teece, D., G. Pisano and A. Shuen, 1997, "Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.", Strategic Management Journal, (18:7), pp.509-533

96 REFERENCES

Titscher, Stefan, Meyer, Michael, Wodak, Ruth, & Vetter, Eva (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis (Bryan Jenner, Trans.). London: Sage

Truss, C., 2001. Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with organisational outcomes. Journal of Management Studies 38, 1121–1149

Winter, SG. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 24:991-995.

Wood, S., 1999. Getting the measure of the transformed high performance organisation. British Journal of Industrial Relations 37/3, 391–417.

Wood, W. and D.T. Neal (2007), ‘A new look at habits and the interface between habits and goals’, Psychological Review, 114(4), 843-63.

Yin, Robert K. (2003a). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed., vol. 5). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Yin, Robert K. (2003b). Applications of case study research (2nd ed., vol. 34). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Zollo M, Singh H. (1998) The impact of knowledge codification, experience trajectories and integration strategies on the performance of corporate acquisitions. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, San Diego, CA

Zollo, M. & Winter, S. (2002): Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities: Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, Knowledge, Knowing, and Organizations, (May - Jun., 2002), pp. 339-351

.

97 APPENDIX A: EMP SURVEY

APPENDIX A: EMP SURVEY

Employee Survey (adapted from Meadow Project)

1. Hvor længe har du arbejdet for Global Wind Power?

Respondents Percent6 18.2%

1- 2 år 9 27.3%2 – 5 år 14 42.4%> 5 år 4 12.1%Total 33 100.0%

2a. I hvilken grad kan du selv vælge eller ændre: - Indholdet af dine arbejdsopgaver?


2b. I hvilken grad kan du selv vælge eller ændre: - Den rækkefølge, du udfører arbejdsopgaver i?


2c. I hvilken grad kan du selv vælge eller ændre: - Hvordan du udfører dine arbejdsopgaver?



3. Hvem evaluerer din arbejdsindsats? [Sæt gerne flere krydser]

Respondents PercentDig selv 26 78.8%Din superviser eller leder 29 87.9%Dit arbejdsteam 15 45.5%En person/personer fra en anden arbejdsafdeling 4 12.1%Kunder eller klienter 8 24.2%Andre [Uddyb venligst] 1 3.0%Total 33 100.0%

Hvem evaluerer din arbejdsindsats? [Sæt gerne flere krydser] - Andre [Uddyb venligst]Vestas

4a. Er det nogle gange nødvendigt at kontakte kolleger fra andre afdelinger eller med andre arbejdsfunktioner i arbejdstiden?


4b. Hvad er ofte årsagen til at kontakte kolleger fra andre afdelinger eller med andre arbejdsfunktioner i arbejdstiden? [Sæt gerne flere krydser]

Respondents PercentKollektiv problemløsning på tværs af afdelinger 25 75.8%For at få eller give informationer 32 97.0%Andre årsager (uddyb venligst 4 12.1%Total 33 100.0%

Hvad er ofte årsagen til at kontakte kolleger fra andre afdelinger eller med andre arbejdsfunktioner i arbejdstiden? [Sæt gerne flere krydser] - Andre årsager (uddyb venligstOpgaver for andre afdelinger"Speciallist"

5. Har nogle af følgende organisatoriske ændringer fundet sted i virksomheden i den tid, du har arbejdet for GWP? [Sæt gerne flere krydser]


Respondents PercentImplementering af nye eller markant ændrede eksisterende IT systemer 8 24.2%Omrokering af ansatte 32 97.0%Implementering af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende arbejdsmetoder 20 60.6%Indføring af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende produkter eller serviceydelser 21 63.6%Andet[uddyb venligst]: 1 3.0%Ingen ændringer 0 0.0%Total 33 100.0%

Har nogle af følgende organisatoriske ændringer fundet sted i virksomheden i den tid, du har arbejdet for GWP? [Sæt gerne flere krydser] - Andet[uddyb venligst]:På vej fra "tømmervirksomhed" til koncern

6a. Deltog du i diskussionen vedrørende nogle af de følgende ændringer forud for implementeret af disse? [Sæt gerne flere krydser]

Respondents PercentImplementering af nye eller markant ændrede eksisterende IT systemer 3 9.4%Omrokering af ansatte 6 18.8%Implementering af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende arbejdsmetoder 8 25.0%Indføring af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende produkter eller serviceydelser 6 18.8%Andet[uddyb venligst]: 2 6.2%Deltog ikke 16 50.0%Total 32 100.0%

Deltog du i diskussionen vedrørende nogle af de følgende ændringer forud for implementeret af disse? [Sæt gerne flere krydser] - Andet[uddyb venligst]:Var med i møderne i kraft af min position i virksomheden

6b. Deltog du i at træffe den endelige beslutning vedrørende nogle af de følgende ændringer forud for implementeret af disse? [Sæt gerne flere krydser]

Respondents PercentImplementering af nye eller markant ændrede eksisterende IT systemer 0 0.0%Omrokering af ansatte 1 3.4%Implementering af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende arbejdsmetoder 2 6.9%Indføring af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende produkter eller serviceydelser 2 6.9%Andet[uddyb venligst]: 2 6.9%Deltog ikke 22 75.9%Total 29 100.0%


Deltog du i at træffe den endelige beslutning vedrørende nogle af de følgende ændringer forud for implementeret af disse? [Sæt gerne flere krydser] - Andet[uddyb venligst]:Som ovennævnt

6c. Havde nogle af disse ændringer en indflydelse på dine arbejdsopgaver?


6d Hvad er din generelle holdning til effektiviteten af de følgende organisatoriske ændringer? - Implementering af nye eller markant ændrede eksisterende IT systemer

Respondents PercentPositiv 11 33.3%Negativ 1 3.0%Hverken positiv eller negativ 5 15.2%Ingen ændringer 16 48.5%Total 33 100.0%

6e Hvad er din generelle holdning til effektiviteten af de følgende organisatoriske ændringer? - Omrokering af ansatte


6f. Hvad er din generelle holdning til effektiviteten af de følgende organisatoriske ændringer? - Implementering af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende arbejdsmetoder



6g. Hvad er din generelle holdning til effektiviteten af de følgende organisatoriske ændringer? - Indføring af nye eller markant ændring af eksisterende produkter eller serviceydelser


6h. Hvad er din generelle holdning til effektiviteten af de følgende organisatoriske ændringer? - Andet[uddyb venligst]:


7a. Arrangerer ledelsen på din arbejdsplads møder, hvor du personligt bliver informeret om, hvad der foregår i organisationen?


7b. Arrangerer ledelsen på din arbejdsplads møder, hvor du kan tilkendegive din personlige holdning til, hvad der foregår i organisationen?



8a. Har du i løbet af den tid du har arbejdet for GWP: - Udtænkt løsninger til at forbedre dine arbejdsopgaver?


8b. Har du i løbet af den tid du har arbejdet for GWP: - Udtænkt nye eller forbedrede produkter eller serviceydelser for GWP?


8c. Har du i løbet af den tid du har arbejdet for GWP: - Prøvet at få din leder til at støtte nye ideer?


9a. Har du deltaget i en medarbejder udviklingssamtale(MUS) indenfor det sidste 2 år?


9b1Havde din medarbejder udviklingssamtale en indflydelse på: - Dit lønniveau?



9b2. Havde din medarbejder udviklingssamtale en indflydelse på: - Udsigter til forfremmelses?


9b3. Havde din medarbejder udviklingssamtale en indflydelse på: - Dine kompetenceudviklingsmuligheder - eksempelvis gennem efteruddannelse?


10. Føler du at du besidder færdigheder, der gør dig i stand til at varetage mere udfordrende opgaver end dem, du udfører i din nuværende stilling?


11. Hvor ofte kræver dit arbejde, at du lærer noget nyt?

Respondents PercentHver dag 7 21.2%Mindst en gang om ugen 15 45.5%Mindst en gang om måneden 10 30.3%Mindre end en gang om måneden/aldrig 1 3.0%Total 33 100.0%

12. Hvor ofte indebærer dit arbejde, at du skal hjælpe kolleger med at lære noget nyt?

Respondents PercentHver dag 7 21.2%Mindst en gang om ugen 12 36.4%


Mindst en gang om måneden 9 27.3%Mindre end en gang om måneden/aldrig 5 15.2%Total 33 100.0%

13a. Bliver du nogensinde konfronteret med nye eller komplekse problemer, hvor det tager mindst 30 min. at finde en god løsning? Du skal kun medregne den tid, det tager at finde en løsning, ikke den tid, det tager at løse selve problemet.


13b. Hvor ofte bliver du konfronteret med den type komplicerede problemer i løbet af en typisk arbejdsuge?

Respondents PercentMindre end én gang om ugen 18 54.5%Én gang om ugen 9 27.3%2-5 gange om ugen 4 12.1%Mere end 5 gange om ugen 2 6.1%Total 33 100.0%

14a. Har du gennemgået følgende former for oplæring eller uddannelse i forbindelse med dit arbejde? Inkluder både oplæring og uddannelse, der blev betalt af dig selv eller arbejdsgiveren, så længe det var i forbindelse med dit arbejde - Har modtaget vejledning eller oplæring i arbejdstiden, som afholdt dig fra at udføre dine normale arbejdsopgaver


14b. Har du gennemgået følgende former for oplæring eller uddannelse i forbindelse med dit arbejde? Inkluder både oplæring og uddannelse, der blev betalt af dig selv eller arbejdsgiveren, så længe det var i forbindelse med dit arbejde - Har modtaget vejledning samtidigt med at jeg udførte mine normale arbejdsopgaver

Respondents Percent


Ja 28 84.8%Nej 5 15.2%Total 33 100.0%

14c Har du gennemgået følgende former for oplæring eller uddannelse i forbindelse med dit arbejde? Inkluder både oplæring og uddannelse, der blev betalt af dig selv eller arbejdsgiveren, så længe det var i forbindelse med dit arbejde - Har lært på egen hånd fra en bog, manual, video eller computer


14d. Har du gennemgået følgende former for oplæring eller uddannelse i forbindelse med dit arbejde? Inkluder både oplæring og uddannelse, der blev betalt af dig selv eller arbejdsgiveren, så længe det var i forbindelse med dit arbejde - Har deltaget i et kursus på nettet


15. Har du modtaget tilstrækkelig oplæring til at udføre dine arbejdsopgaver tilfredsstillende?


Overall Status

Respondents PercentNew 0 0.0%Distributed 0 0.0%Partially Complete 0 0.0%Complete 33 100.0%Rejected 0 0.0%


Total 33 100.0%


APPENDIX B: Mgmt Survey (adapted from DISKO and Meadow Project Survey)

1. Hvor længe har du arbejdet for GWP?

Respondents Percent0 0.0%

1- 2 år 2 25.0%2 – 5 år 3 37.5%> 5 år 3 37.5%Total 8 100.0%

2. Hvem træffer normalt beslutninger vedrørende planlægning og udførelse af ansattes (ikke ledere) daglige arbejdsopgaver?

Respondents PercentDe ansatte der påtager sig opgaverne 1 12.5%Ledere 0 0.0%Både ansatte og ledere 7 87.5%Total 8 100.0%

3. Hvordan foregår arbejdsrelateret kommunikation de forskellige afdelinger imellem?

Respondents PercentKommunikation mellem afdelinger foregår på lederniveau 0 0.0%Kommunikation mellem afdelinger foregår mellem ansatte(ikke ledere) 0 0.0%Kommunikation mellem afdelinger foregår både mellem ansatte(ikke ledere) og på lederniveau

8 100.0%

Total 8 100.0%

4. Holder GWP tilsyn med effektiviteten af diverse arbejdsprocesser?

Respondents PercentJa, fortløbende 0 0.0%Ja, periodisk 6 75.0%Nej 2 25.0%Total 8 100.0%

5. Dokumenterer de ansatte gode arbejdsrutiner eller erfaringer, som derved kan anvendes af andre ansatte i organisationen?



6. Indsamler og evaluerer GWP forslag fra ansatte?

Respondents PercentJa, fortløbende 1 12.5%Ja, periodisk 5 62.5%Nej 2 25.0%Total 8 100.0%

7. Søger eller holder GWP sig opdateret med eksterne nye ideer eller teknologisk udvikling for nye eller forbedrede produkter, processer eller serviceydelser?

Respondents PercentJa. Der er ansatte udpeget til at varetage denne opgave 1 12.5%Ja. Det er alle ansattes ansvar at holde sig opdateret 3 37.5%Nej 1 12.5%Ved ikke 3 37.5%Total 8 100.0%

8a. I hvilken grad har Global Wind Power udviklet nært samarbejde med: - Videnscentre (ex universiteter eller teknologiske institutioner) for tilegnelse eller deling af viden?

Respondents PercentI høj grad 0 0.0%I nogen grad 1 12.5%I mindre grad 5 62.5%Slet ikke 0 0.0%Ved ikke 2 25.0%Total 8 100.0%

8b. I hvilken grad har Global Wind Power udviklet nært samarbejde med: - Konsulentvirksomheder eller juridisk rådgivning for at tilegne sig viden?

Respondents PercentI høj grad 5 62.5%I nogen grad 2 25.0%


I mindre grad 1 12.5%Slet ikke 0 0.0%Ved ikke 0 0.0%Total 8 100.0%

8c. I hvilken grad har Global Wind Power udviklet nært samarbejde med: - Leverandører på det grundlag at tilegne sig og dele viden?


8d. I hvilken grad har Global Wind Power udviklet nært samarbejde med: - Kunder på det grundlag at tilegnelse sig viden vedrørende kunders behov?


9. Kontrollerer GWP kundetilfredshed eller identificerer latente kundebehov vha. spørgeskemaer eller andre metoder?

Respondents PercentJa, jævnligt 4 50.0%Ja, men ikke hyppigt 3 37.5%Nej 1 12.5%Total 8 100.0%

10a. Anvender GWP en eller flere af de følgende slags informations teknologi? - ’Client or customer relationship’ software(CRM)

Respondents PercentJa 0 0.0%


Nej 7 87.5%Ved ikke 1 12.5%Total 8 100.0%

10b. Anvender GWP en eller flere af de følgende slags informations teknologi? - Software der følger op på arbejdspræstationer

Respondents PercentJa 0 0.0%Nej 7 87.5%Ved ikke 1 12.5%Total 8 100.0%

10c. Anvender GWP en eller flere af de følgende slags informations teknologi? - 'Enterprise Resource Planning' (ERP)software


10d. Anvender GWP en eller flere af de følgende slags informations teknologi? - Samarbejds software


10e. Anvender GWP en eller flere af de følgende slags informations teknologi? - Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) med eksterne klienter eller leverandører



´-

11. Hvordan vil du beskrive virksomhedens ´´79informations- og kommunikationsteknologi?

Respondents PercentDet sidste nye 1 12.5%Det samme som de fleste andre virksomheder anvender 7 87.5%Forældet sammenlignet med det udstyr andre virksomheder anvender 0 0.0%Ved ikke 0 0.0%Total 8 100.0%

12. Hvor stor en procentdel af de ansatte gennemgår en medarbejder udviklingssamtale (MUS) mindst én gang årligt?

Respondents PercentIngen 0 0.0%1% til 24% 0 0.0%25% til 49% 0 0.0%50% eller flere 8 100.0%Total 8 100.0%

13. Er der sammenhæng mellem forfremmelse af ansatte og deres præstation til medarbejder udviklingssamtalen(MUS)?

Respondents PercentJa, præstation til MUS er den afgørende faktor, der påvirker en eventuel forfremmelse 1 12.5%Ja, men præstation til MUS er kun én af mange faktorer, der påvirker en eventuel forfremmelse

2 25.0%

Nej 5 62.5%Total 8 100.0%

14. For hvor stor en procentdel af de ansatte i denne virksomhed har egen arbejdsindsats eller en større gruppes arbejdsindsats indflydelse på dele af enkeltindividers løn?

Respondents PercentIngen 0 0.0%1% til 24% 1 12.5%25% til 49% 1 12.5%50% eller flere 6 75.0%


Total 8 100.0%

15a. Har nogle af de ansatte hos GWP fået løn under uddannelse, enten indenfor eller udenfor virksomheden, i løbet af de sidste 12 måneder?

Respondents PercentJa 6 75.0%Nej 0 0.0%Ved Ikke 2 25.0%Total 8 100.0%

15b. Hvor stor en procentdel af de ansatte har fået løn under videreuddannelse indenfor de sidste 12 måneder?

Respondents Percentop til 24% 5 83.3%25% til 49% 1 16.7%50% til 74% 0 0.0%75% eller flere 0 0.0%Total 6 100.0%

16a. Har nogle af de ansatte modtaget træning/uddannelse på jobbet for at forbedre deres færdigheder indenfor de sidste 12 måneder?


16b. Hvor stor en procentdel af de ansatte har modtaget træning/uddannelse på jobbet indenfor de sidste 12 måneder?

Respondents Percentop til 24% 2 25.0%25% til 49% 5 62.5%50% til 74% 0 0.0%75% eller flere 1 12.5%Total 8 100.0%


17a. Har GWP introduceret nye eller betydeligt forbedret eksisterende produkter eller serviceydelser indenfor de sidste 2 år?


17b. Var nogle af disse produkter eller serviceydelser nye på markedet?


17c. Var nogle af disse produkter eller serviceydelser nye for GWP, men ikke på markedet?


18. Har GWP introduceret nye eller betydeligt forbedret eksisterende processer, enten til at producere varer eller levere serviceydelser, indenfor de sidste 2 år?


19. Har virksomheden introduceret nye eller betydeligt forbedrede markedsføringsmetoder indenfor de sidste to år?



20a. Har virksomheden fortaget nogle betydelige organisatoriske ændringer indenfor de sidste 2 år?


20b. I hvilken grad har målet for de organisatoriske ændringer primært været at styrke følgende: - Effektiviteten af det daglige arbejde


20c. I hvilken grad har målet for de organisatoriske ændringer primært været at styrke følgende: - Samarbejde og koordinering på tværs af organisationen


20d. I hvilken grad har målet for de organisatoriske ændringer primært været at styrke følgende: - Organisationens evne til at tilpasse sig sine omgivelser



20e. I hvilken grad har målet for de organisatoriske ændringer primært været at styrke følgende: - Organisationens evne til kontinuerligt at tilpasse sig nye produkter/serviceydelser


20f. I hvilken grad har målet for de organisatoriske ændringer primært været at styrke følgende: - Organisationens evne til kontinuerligt at styrke og forny viden og ”know-how”


20g. I hvilken grad har målet for de organisatoriske ændringer primært været at styrke følgende: - Organisationens evne til at outsource


20h. I hvilken grad har målet for de organisatoriske ændringer primært været at styrke følgende: - Kundeservice



21. Beskrive venligst den/de mest betydningsfulde organisatoriske ændringer, der har fundet sted indenfor de sidste 2 år? Decentralisering med uddeling af kompetance til landeenhederneDecentralisering af opgaver fra koncernen til landeenheder. Ledelsesmæssige ændringer i direktionen. Opkøb af fransk landeenhed etablering af Rumænsk landeenhedLedelsesmæssig Turn Around i december 09OMstrukturering og væsentlige ændringer i ledelsen i dec. 2009Indførsel af en Opeerations enhed/gren, hvor koordinering mellem afdelinger er blevet væsentligt styrket, lige som beslutningskompetence er blevet afklaret i langt højere grad end tidligere.Samling af de daglige forretninger (Operations) under COOProjektudvikling flytter ud i de lande hvor der skal laves projektudvikling i stedet for at foregå fra kontoret i Thisted. Der er kommet et kontor i Tyskland, Harrislee

Overall Status

Respondents PercentNew 0 0.0%Distributed 0 0.0%Partially Complete 0 0.0%Complete 8 100.0%Rejected 0 0.0%Total 8 100.0%

Documents

Problem Formulation:projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/52659837/Learning... · Web viewIn contrast, dynamic capabilities developed in ‘high-velocity’ markets, characterized as “ones