In Nordic countries, as well as in the Netherlands, schools have high school autonomy. In schools there are both horizontal and vertical working relations and all teachers and school principals within a school are expected to take responsibility for collaborative-innovation practices (CIP). In this paper, we describe a study investigating how both horizontal and vertical working relations relate to CIP. We used longitudinal questionnaire (2036 teachers, 157 schools) and interview data (53 teachers, 20 schools). These data were gathered in Dutch schools participating in the large-scale ‘LeerKRACHT’ program. The results show that teachers perceive horizontal and vertical factors to enhance CIP. Furthermore, especially school principals and coach-teachers seem to be able to strengthen horizontal and vertical factors which leads to more CIP. We discuss implications for research and schools in the Netherlands and beyond. Schools operate in demanding and rapidly changing environments. As a result, teachers and school principals are expected to continuously improve their school practices to maintain the quality of the education they provide. In literature on school development, change, and reform, there is an increasing emphasis on investigating how various educational interventions turn out. Some of these studies highlighted that interventions are sometimes an isolated activity of one teacher or a small group of teachers According to Vangrieken et al. in education, a strong-rooted culture of individualism, autonomy, and independence appears to be dominant. A ‘culture of collaboration’, however, has many advantages. This is also shown in research traditions of whole-school improvement. It can result in more ‘school democracy’ and more appropriate ideas and solutions for the challenges faced by schools. A growing number of schools have begun to initiate types of teacher collaboration, such as ‘professional learning communities’ and ‘data teams’. Such collaborations of teachers in schools can be called horizontal working relations. Researchers from Nordic countries for instance studied the horizontal forms of accountability and responsibility in schools. Consequently, international scholars have called for more ‘networked’ and ‘collaborative’ approaches. In the organizational literature, the notion of collaborative innovation is used for such approaches, which is characterized by both horizontal and vertical working relations. This notion fits within the broader field of school development research that approaches development as a collaborative process as well. Here both teachers’ working relations (horizontal) and working relations between teachers and school principals are studied (vertical). Studying both fits with the culture of The Netherlands and Nordic countries, which are found to be in the same cultural clusters, appreciating team-oriented and participative leadership, including horizontal and vertical working relations. However, in daily school practice it seems that breaking with the individualistic culture and changing to more collaborative-innovation practices is hard. We have an unique opportunity to study the relationship between horizontal and vertical working relations and the degree of collaborative-innovation practices (CIP). Since, in the Netherlands there is a large-scale program called LeerKRACHT that aims to stimulate CIP in schools (LeerKRACHT means “Learning force” and also “Teacher” in Dutch). The program expects from both teachers and school principals to collaborate and share resources, knowledge, and ideas and it thus asks for at least one manner of working together. The program is used by over a thousand schools in the Netherlands, and the data used in the current paper are gathered as part of a larger research project in which this program was evaluated. We study the degree of CIP in primary, secondary, and vocational schools with a mixed method approach both at the start and when working on collaborative-innovation practices in a structured way with the program ‘leerKRACHT’.
LINK
The research concerned semi-dyadic relations in SMEs and large companies that managed innovative suppliers in New Zealand construction supply chains. It explored effects of (independent) company variables on (mediating) procurement management variables, and also the effects of these variable types on (dependent) procurement performance variables when managing innovative suppliers.Exploratory interviews (N=5) revealed that innovation procurement seemed professional and logical within their contexts.Survey I (N=112) revealed that most case companies followed a product leadership strategy, and were equally entrepreneurial to innovative customers and innovative suppliers. They were innovative and gave innovative suppliers a dominant innovation role. They seemed to prefer radical innovations less than incremental innovations, but still somewhat more than New Zealand averages. Companies had slight preferences for new, small, or foreign suppliers for radical innovations. Innovations with supplier interactions were more beneficial to the company and the natural environment, than innovations without supplier interactions. Higher company innovation-benefits could equal higher environmental innovation-benefits. This profile differed from the profile of average companies in the construction supply chain.Survey I found weak correlations among output performance variables and process or proxy performance variables.Dependent (procurement and performance) variables were affected differently. Conversely, independent (company and procurement) variables had different effects.Different from extant literature, Survey I found limited statistically-significant effects of company variables on procurement management variables, and of these two variable types on performance. A minority (41%) of company variables affected procurement variables; only two company variables (13%) affected performance; a minority (40%) of procurement variables affected performance.Product leadership and NPD/innovation experience affected performance. Moreover, trust, lifestyle strategies and survival strategies affected procurement variables. Conversely, 27% of performance variables (satisfaction on marketing & sales; benefits for the natural environment) and 30% of procurement variables (entrepreneurial orientation with innovative suppliers, relation intensity with manufacturers, and small vs large suppliers for radical innovations) responded stronger on some company variables. Company size (<99 versus >250 staff) had little effects.Innovating, opportunity-seeking and trust towards innovative suppliers, and relation intensity with innovative service providers had highest effects on performance. Conversely, 46% of the performance variables (satisfaction with innovative suppliers, benefits for natural environment and company) responded stronger on innovating, opportunities-seeking and trust variables.Survey II (N=33) identified 12 procurement best-practices that respondents used for specific supplier or innovation types.Causality should be treated cautiously. Findings reflected the inconclusive results from extant literature. The research provided a nuanced and varied understanding on management of innovative suppliers, on the effects of entrepreneurial orientation to innovative suppliers, on the limited effects of company size, on the complex relations between various performance measures, and on entrepreneurship as a theoretical lens in innovation procurement. Companies had several options on how they managed their innovative suppliers. Additionally, the company characteristics and context of in this nascent research domain could be more important than commonly assumed from extant research.
MULTIFILE
The in-depth assessment of the situation of the European textile and clothing sector is composed by six independent reports with a close focus on key aspects useful to understand the dynamics and the development of the textile and clothing industry, drivers of change – most notably the impact of the financial crisis – and identification of policy responses and best practices. This has been done in six specific tasks leading to the six reports: Task 1 Survey on the situation of the EU textile and clothing sector Task 2 Report on research and development Task 3 Report on SME situation Task 4 Report on restructuring Task 5 Report on training and Education Task 6 Report on innovation practices Task 6 focused on understanding how European textile & clothing companies are engaged into innovation practices. Hence key questions regard what is critical to transform knowledge and Research and Development (R&D) into good selling marketable products and which are the driving forces and relationships towards a better competitive performance through innovation. The analysis was carried out and the trends were then verified in selected regional cases: Lombardia Piemonte, Baden Württemberg, North Portugal and Galicia, Slovenia and Romania.
MULTIFILE
