Impact of belief and cognitive similarity in the innovation process at hanoi telecom joint stock company

ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI KHOA QUẢN TRỊ VÀ KINH DOANH --- HOÀNG TẠ QUANG IMPACT OF BELIEF AND COGNITIVE SIMILARITY IN THE INNOVATION PROCESS AT HANOI TELECOM JOINT STOCK COMPANY TÁC ĐỘN

ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI KHOA QUẢN TRỊ VÀ KINH DOANH

-

HOÀNG TẠ QUANG

IMPACT OF BELIEF AND COGNITIVE SIMILARITY IN THE INNOVATION PROCESS AT HANOI TELECOM

JOINT STOCK COMPANY

TÁC ĐỘNG CỦA NIỀM TIN VÀ SỰ TƯƠNG ĐỒNG NHẬN THỨC TRONG QUÁ TRÌNH ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO TẠI CÔNG TY CỔ PHẦN VIỄN THÔNG HÀ NỘI

LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ QUẢN TRỊ KINH DOANH

HÀ NỘI - 2019

ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI KHOA QUẢN TRỊ VÀ KINH DOANH

-

HOÀNG TẠ QUANG

IMPACT OF BELIEF AND COGNITIVE SIMILARITY IN THE INNOVATION PROCESS AT HANOI TELECOM

JOINT STOCK COMPANY

TÁC ĐỘNG CỦA NIỀM TIN VÀ SỰ TƯƠNG ĐỒNG NHẬN THỨC TRONG QUÁ TRÌNH ĐỔI MỚI SÁNG TẠO TẠI CÔNG TY CỔ PHẦN VIỄN THÔNG HÀ NỘI

Chuyên ngành: Quản trị kinh doanh

Mã số: 60 34 01 02

LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ QUẢN TRỊ KINH DOANH

NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC: PGS.TS HOÀNG ĐÌNH PHI

HÀ NỘI - 2019

CAMPAIGNS

I pledge that this is my own research The content referenced and used the documents, information posted on the works, journals and reports are fully annotated in the catalog reference of thesis

Author

A completed study would not be done without any assistance Therefore, the author who conducted this research gratefully gives acknowledgement to their support and motivation during the time of doing this research as a requirement of completing my Thesis of Management Business Administration

First of all, I would like to express my endless thanks and gratefulness to my

supervisor Assoc.Prof.Doc.Hoàng Đình Phi His kindly support and continuous

advices went through the process of completion of my thesis His encouragement and comments had significantly enriched and improved my work Without his motivation and instructions, the thesis would have been impossible to be done effectively

So far, I would like to thanks all Lectures in Hanoi School of Business and Management (HSB) where supported me all the time and help to complete my

thesis My special thanks approve to my parents for their endless love, care and have most assistances and motivation me for the whole of my life As last, my deeply thanks come to all my friends in MBA13 during time I study in HSB Their kindly help, care, motivation gave me strength and lift me up all the trouble for the rest of my life

Best Regards

TABLE CONTENT

LIST OF SHORT-CUT i

LIST OF FIGURES ii

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE IMPACTS OF BELIEFS, COGNITIVE SIMILARITIES IN THE INNOVATION PROCESS 12

1.1 Belief in Organization 12

1.1.1 Defination of Belief 12

1.1.2 Classify of Belief: 13

1.1.3 Role of belief in organization 14

1.2 Cognitive similarity 15

1.2.1 Defination of Cognitive Similarity 15

1.2.2 Role of Cognitive Similarity 15

1.3 Knowledge sharing 17

1.3.1 Defination of knowledge sharing 17

1.3.2 Classify of knowledge sharing 18

1.3.3 Role of knowledge sharing 19

1.4 Innovation 20

1.4.1 Define of Innovation 20

1.4.2 Classify of Innovation 22

1.4.3 Capacity of Innovation: 25

1.5 Basic theory and models of innovation capacity in enterprises 26

1.5.1 Jantunen (2005) 26

1.5.2 Tseng và cộng sự (2011) 27

1.6 Method Research and Model Research of Thesis: 29

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH AT HANOI TELECOM JOINT STOCK COMPANY 34

2.1 General information 34

2.2 The importance of innovation in telecommunications business and the

operation of Hanoi Telecom joint stock company: 35

2.2.1 The importance of innovation in telecommunications business activities: 35 2.2.2 Problems in innovation process at Hanoi Telecom joint stock company: 36

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD 41

3.1 Reresearch process: 41

3.2 Questionaire and Builing Scale 42

3.2.1 Questionaire in Qualiative Method 42

3.2.2 Building scale 43

3.3 Samples Research: 46

3.3.1 Design Samples: 46

3.3.2 Collecting imformation: 46

3.3.3 Analyse documents: 46

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULT AND SUGGESTIONS 50

4.1 Reasearh result: 50

4.1.1 Descriptive statistics: 50

4.1.2 Evaluate the reliability of the scale: 52

4.1.3 Describe factor EFA: 53

4.1.4 Describe factor CFA: 55

4.1.5 Checking by SEM method: 56

4.2 Define the target in business: 57

4.3 Suggestions: 59

4.3.1 Building criteria for evaluating innovation activities: 59

4.3.2 Inceating quality of recruitment process: 60

4.3.3 Increate for knowledge sharing in organization: 61

CONCLUSION 64

REFERENCES 66 Appendix

LIST OF SHORT-CUT

Amos20 Name of sorfware

BCC Business Co-Operation Contract

MRV Multi Variate Regression

PAF Principal Axis Factoring

SMEs Small and Medium Enterprise

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Research Model of Jantunen (2005) 27

Figure 1.2 : Research Model of Tseng and partners 28

Figure 1.3: Research Method of Author 29

Figure 1.4 : Scale structure of variables in the research model 30

Figure 3.1 : Research Process 41

Figure 3.2: Research Method of thesis 42

Figure 3.3 : Structure of Questionaire and Scale 43

Figure 3.4 : Questions of Belief 44

Figure 3.5 : Questions of Cognitive Similarity 44

Figure 3.6 : Questions of knowledge sharing 45

Figure 3.7 : Questions of Innovation 45

Figure 3.8: (Objective of Survey) 46

Figure 3.9: (EFA Table) 48

Figure 4.1: ( Ratio follow gender and Position ) 50

Figure 4.2: ( Ratio follow number of working year 50

Figure 4.3: (The average value of the observed variable) 51

Figure 4.4: The result of the research concepts 52

Figure 4.5: Result of checking factor EFA 53

Figure 4.6: Matrix rotating elements 54

Figure 4.7: Describe factor CFA 55

Figure 4.8: The model of the relationship between beliefs, cognitive similarities, knowledge sharing and innovation 56

Figure 4.9: Final result 57

Figure 4.10 : Evaluate Innovation Activities 60

INTRODUCTION

1 Urgentcy of subject:

In an international economic integration and the new industrial revolution, in order to survive and develop sustainably, the enterprises must bring the highest quality products or services at the most competitive price; whilst keep low cost as much as possible and find the way to eliminate their competitors To make it happend, the enterprises in general and SMEs in particular should make innovation performance efficiently and continously

Innovation in business is the process of implement the new ideas, inventions

or knowledge and handling it, so that a new commercial product or service will be launched The main characteristics of innovation are new, fresh, necessary and succesful result Innovation can be global, but rare and normally carry on in the local In practice, innovation creates the profit, but there are also many risks of failure because innovation is not only just changing products or services but also the whole or part of commercialization process

Innovation helps organization to move faster, stronger, further in the market, prevail their competitors, and stand firmly on the path of development by creating new ideas of products, services, or customer interaction Creativity is an important component of innovation; and will be gained through teamwork in the organisation However, to make innovation efficiently and continuously is not the easy task for each company It can only be succeed when each member of the organization works together in an effort to make the innovation happened in the company

Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Corporation (HTC) is a tele-communications enterprise which provide several businesses including: mobile services (through the operator named Vietnamobile), fiber optic line services; value added servies and others Telecommuication is a large investment field, fierce competition compared

to other business Therefore, the main objective of the company is creating a friendly working environment, promoting the strength of solidarity, and equivalence

of each member in the organization to achieve the succees

The company knows that, each member will impact to innovation process and helps company change from inside This thesis focus on factors in each member which effecting to innovation process Therefore, the author selected the topic

"Impact of belief and cognitive similarity in the innovation process at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company"

2 Research Objectives:

* General objectives:

 To determine the impact of belief factors, cognitive similarities affecting knownedge sharing, and effectiveness of innovation activities

at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company

 To survey and evaluate the role of factors, based on which proposals and measures to promote the process of innovation in the company

* Main objective of sudy:

 To complete the measurement scale of belief factors, similarities, knowledge sharing, efficiency of innovation activities of high technology in general and Hanoi Telecommunications Joint Stock Company

 To explore the role of belief factors, similarities of awareness, impact

on knowledge sharing and effectiveness of innovation activities at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company

 To determine the relationship between the factors in the innovation process at Hanoi Telecommunications Joint Stock Company

 To propose some solutions to improve the factors affecting the innovation process at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company

Questions:

 What is the factor of fairy, cognitive similarity affects knowledge sharing?

 What is the factor of sharing knowledge affect the efficiency of innovation activities?

 What is the role of each factor in forming the innovation process at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company?

 How are the factors affecting the innovation process at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company?

 What are effective solutions to promote innovation at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company

3 Research subject:

The number of factors affecting the knowledge sharing process is very large, the effectiveness of innovation activities in enterprises is aslo big, so that in the framework of the thesis, the author will not be able to study all this number Therefore, the study of economic, non-economic and geopolitical factors are difficult to measure and assess, so they are not mentioned much in this study Thus,

the research object of the thesis is ‘’ Researching factors (beliefs, cognitive similarities) impacting on knowledge sharing and operational efficiency of the innovation process at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company’’

4 Scope of Research:

Space:

Subjects of the survey are all members working at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company and its partners, assessing belief factors, cognitive similarities affecting knowledge sharing, and innovation performance actions at the company

Refer to situations and solutions to improve belief factors, cognitive similarities that affect knownedge sharing, and innovation performance actions at similar conditional companies, such as Viettel, FPT, VNPT

Period:

Research data: Focus and collect data, information which relates to belief factors, cognitive similarities affecting information sharing, and effectiveness of innovation activities at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company during the period (2016 - 2018)

5 Method Research:

In terms of methodology, the factors which affecting knowledge sharing and innovation capacity in enterprises will be diversed, however there are three main types: Qualitative, Quantiative and Mixing, based on using forms of data analysis and evaluation, such as synthesis, statistics, description, comparison and forecast There are

some qualitative researches such as Furman and Hayes (2004), Chen and Taylor ( 2009), using interview techniques to find out the factor relationship However, in this thesis, the author chooses the qualitative method combined with quantification

(i) Qualitative research: Base on 02 techniques: Face to Face interviews and group discussions, to adjust the observed variable content to match the characteristics of Telecom company, at the same time, find out new components for concept Besides, through qualitative research, affirmed the role and direction of impact of the concept in quality management in this study

(ii) Quantitative research: Carry on through 2 (two) stages: preliminary research with 30 samples (employees working in the company with different positions) to assess the scale of factors and formal research 133 templates for testing models and research hypotheses Subjects of the survey are leaders, managers and employees in company (enterprises operating in basic areas: information technology and tele-communications; and high-tech services)

Data were cleaned and processed on software SPP20 and Amos20 with Cronbach's alpha reliability factor analysis technique, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural model Linear (SEM) In addition, a multi-group analysis method is also used to verify the difference caused

by the state of business ownership Besides, the research is also integrated using the method of synthesis, analysis, statistics, description, comparison, forecast

6 Structure of thesis:

There are 04 chapter in the thesis, as follows:

Chapter 1: Theoretical basis for the impact of beliefs, cognitive similarities in

the innovation process

Chapter 2: Background of research at Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company Chapter 3: Research method

Chapter 4: Research results and Suggestions

7 The meaning of research:

Base on research results, the author has some suggestions in terms of theory and business administration, specifically:

Theory:

(i) Develop a theoretical framework for belief and similarity affecting knowledge sharing and innovation in high-tech enterprises This is not a novel topic for empirical research in the world, but is a difficult problem when conducting tests

In general, the thesis also suggest a new research directions to figure out important factors of innovation activities in the organiztion and Hanoi Telecom Joint Stock Company in particular

8 Summary research:

8.1 In foreign :

(a) Belief with co-woking organization:

The cooperative network performs many functions (Novkovic & Holm, 2012) supporting economic and social sustainability (Crona & Hubacek, 2010) Such activity is often controlled and governed by an autonomous association dependent

on a network of individuals in organizations that provide different contributions Economic activity in small businesses has relatively less resources (eg employees, revenue or financial assets) compared to larger organizations in the same sector

Therefore, the opportunity to overcome limited resources motivates small businesses to develop cooperation agreements (Felzenztein, Gimmon, & Carter, 2010; Jussila, Goel, & Tuominen, 2012a; Mazzarol, Limnios, & Reboud, 2013) Although cooperation agreements may provide advantages, there is evidence that many people perform poorly and estimates suggest that more than half of the final failures (Dacin, Hitt, & Levitas, 1997; Huggins, 2000) Similarly, the related approach of joint ventures also has a high failure rate because partners often show different motivations (Park & Russo, 1996) Commitment is a feature related to sustainable relationships (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) and is often considered a successful proxy in relationships However, relationships are not maintained by precise relations contracts but vary depending on the situation, thus explaining the high failure rate (Dacin et al., 1997)

Many collaborative efforts involve performing short-term functions such as general marketing, general sales, reputation building and infrastructure maintenance for members or facilitating further relationships (Hingley, 2010) Sometimes, short-term sharing projects overshadow long-term cooperation and neglect the maintenance of relationships But support activities that are willing to invest a lot of time and / or resources to develop common interests must be pursued Such standard-based reciprocity is not necessarily a direct one-on-one, but a situation in which a responded activity can stimulate others to help a third person (that is, common interests) )

Therefore, continuous investment is necessary in the factors that lead to enterprise commitment For example, mutually beneficial relationships must create tangible benefits, but they do not necessarily have to be accumulated in the short term In fact, the partner's commitment to cooperatives is reflected in the ongoing effort to build inter-personal and inter-organizational relationships to maintain cooperation and ensure their success, thus ensuring that Long-term benefits are accumulated through collaborative intervention

inter-From this point of view, trust, reciprocity and commitment to building relationships can be the fulcrum of any successful cooperative, and especially an

organization that is a business organization small lack of resources and interdependence Therefore, the development of mutual trust must be the goal of the constituent members of any strategic alliance, and more in the case of a joint venture relationship in a business cooperative environment small

The greater emphasis on mutual commitment and building joint venture relationships is most evident in the context of small businesses operating in a collaborative environment in markets characterized by uncertainty and high risk Examples from game theory about authentic situations prove that cooperative partners under formal cooperation agreements often expect too early results, leading

to these deals being dissolved soon before benefits tangible accumulation for partner members (Pesa¨maa, Hair, & Eriksson, 2008)

Therefore, taking the prospect of building relationships, cooperation agreements are an ongoing concern that can help overcome these challenges and allow partners to survive typical early-stage issues (Pesa¨maa & Eriksson, 2010) Balancing short-term goals, namely short-term profits against long-term value creation, is difficult in strategic alliances as well as for cooperation agreements In regulating short-term and long-term goals, companies in cooperatives often have conflicting assumptions about partners' attitudes - individualism, self-interest and competition over collectiveism physical, altruistic oppositions and cooperation (Pesa¨maa et al., 2008)

Adjusting the need to produce clear results quickly to respond to each partner Instant benefits with a longer-term relationship perspective, requires commitment based on mutual trust and reciprocity a difficult task If the parties realize their purpose in cooperating is to create tangible profits immediately, there is a serious risk that the partners in the cooperative will lose focus and simply decide to give up

it is in uncertainty and risk When cooperatives are starting, it is important to have a reciprocating atmosphere, with giving and receiving reconcilable efforts to maximize the long-term value of each fish multiply

However, this is not enough, and to ensure the viability of cooperation agreements between companies regarding the future, cooperative members must be

patient and admit that short-term sacrifices Profit potential is proven by the promise

of long-term results Furthermore, partners must be confident that cooperative members will remain committed and continue to invest in cooperatives (Dickson, 1996; Novkovic & Holm, 2012) Therefore, cooperative members must build relationships and show signals that lead to trust and reciprocity, as well as a long-term commitment to building relationships to maintain the status of Small businesses participate in cooperation agreements

A commitment to building relationships allows cooperative members to benefit from common resources and capacities, and in this way help strengthen their combined market and economic potential Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine interpersonal and inter-organizational commitments in the context of small business cooperatives, emphasizing the role of trust and reciprocity as a precursor to commitment , as well as the last sponsor of a joint venture in a small business cooperative environment

(b) Belief affect to knowledge sharing:

Knowledge and learning are becoming the main determinants of supply chains Competitive advantages (Crone and Roper, 2001; Spekman et al., 2002) The main objective of research and practice of knowledge management is to facilitate effective knowledge sharing among organizational members (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Desouza, 2003) To improve organizational coordination and product quality, manufacturing companies often require their supply chain partners such as subcontractors or suppliers to implement common processes, often requiring share knowledge about the process

Therefore, sharing organizational knowledge in the supply chain has become a practice, because it enhances the competitive advantage of the entire supply chain (Holland, 1995) In order to gain the advantages of knowledge sharing, it is important for manufacturing companies to understand the factors that influence the knowledge sharing behavior of their partners

Current research on this important issue has focused on modeling all the factors being investigated as precursors or independent variables that directly affect

knowledge-sharing behaviors These models do not consider indirect effects and do not pay special attention to the coexistence of cooperation and competition relationships among members of the supply chain, called cooperation (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996) In a collaborative business environment, despite the advantage of sharing organizational knowledge, manufacturing companies can hinder knowledge sharing, if they consider partners as potential competitors and try to tell protecting their core knowledge from partner's opportunistic behavior (Spekman et al., 2002)

This is mainly because sharing key knowledge or confidential information can increase their partners' competitive advantage, which may conflict with their own interests in a highly competitive market .1995) To solve the issue of collaborative synergies in the supply chain to investigate factors affecting organizational knowledge sharing, we developed a new research model that considers trust as an intermediary structure

The trust structure is used to reflect the level of cooperation and competition between supply chain members In this context, belief is considered to be firm firm belief that its supply chain partners will take actions that bring positive results and will not take unexpected actions that result negative for the company (Anderson and Narus, 1990)

Therefore, the power of this belief can make the company believe in the reliability and integrity of its partners (Morgan and Hunt, 1994) With faith as an intermediary structure, we can examine the level of trust, when interacting with other influencing factors, that can have an impact on the sharing of organizational knowledge in the supply chain To test the new research model, we conducted an empirical study of green manufacturing companies and their partners in the Taiwan green supply chain The green supply chain has recently emerged to comply with regulations on environmental protection Green manufacturing companies and their supply chain partners are very enthusiastic in developing environmentally friendly activities to maintain and promote their competitiveness

Due to the continuous development of green technologies and regulations, green experience sharing and updated knowledge between manufacturing companies and their supply chain partners has become necessary With the new research model, we will examine the role of trust in sharing organizational knowledge in order to provide an understanding of how effective green knowledge sharing can be facilitated in the green supply chain

In the following sections, we first give an overview of organizational knowledge sharing in the green supply chain Next we discuss the factors that influence belief and knowledge sharing, and present new research models with 13 hypotheses Then we describe the survey tool developed and data collected from Taiwan's large green manufacturing companies, followed by model testing by structural equation model Finally, we discuss their results, practical implications and limitations, and suggestions for future research

According to Nguyen Viet Hoa (2010, page 43), ―Innovation capacity is a process of pursuing profits based on efforts made new products or services accepted by the market This is a total process can include many complex social activities and interact with each other like research, deploy technology, design, manufacturing, marketing, commercialization, education, training conducted by many related organizations such as businesses, universities, and institutions State management "

Meanwhile, a survey of 583 enterprises of Phung Xuan Nha and Le Quan (2013) shows that the situation is worrying when there are Very few businesses see innovation as the driving force for growth, while we is entering a period of global economic integration 72% of businesses are not standardized suffer from human resource policies for innovation activities; 78% do not have a first policy financial investment for new product / process development; nearly 80% have no policy cooperation and development for innovation, only 12 businesses have departments R&D (Phung Xuan Nha, Le Quan, 2013) Or find out about the World Bank report and OECD (2016) on the assessment of Science, technology and innovation in Vietnam Male experts say we should invest early in development capacity modern technology and enhance the role of innovation

In summary, through the situation of world research and the situation of domestic research has helped the author have an overall view of the situation of researching beliefs, similarities of cognitive awareness of knowledge-sharing impacts, bright innovation created in the enterprise, in order to support the author to have objective evaluation and not be misleading research orientation

CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE IMPACTS OF BELIEFS, COGNITIVE

SIMILARITIES IN THE INNOVATION PROCESS

1.1 Belief in Organization

In a reliable work environment, employees feel safe They are not afraid of negative consequences for themselves or their lives They are not afraid of emotional and psychological harm Employees can express their true selves without caring about the consequences that threaten their image or their future Employees believe that the company will consider each employee, find ways to meet employee needs, and treat employees fairly Employees have confidence in organizations and colleages, they will be comfortable, free, developing their capacity, developing individuals and organizations Recognizing this, leaders strive to build their trust by putting their people on top so they can feel safe

Trust is a belief that involves knowing that the other party will act in a way that benefits the trustee, or that the other party has ethical, effective or favorable characteristics

In this study, in order to reflect the co-operative relationship between the members of the organization, and between the working member and the working organization, the belief is about trust in the reliability and integrity of Partners lead

to positive results Trust plays an important role in facilitating deeper exchange relationships such as knowledge sharing (Moller and Svahn, 2004) There is no confidence in the co-operation process, the information exchanged or the knowledge shared among the partners can have low accuracy (Currall, 1995)

1.1.2 Classify of Belief:

In the definitions of belief, two types of beliefs are proposed, based beliefs and identity-based beliefs In knowledge-based trust, long-term interaction is the main source of trust because it is easy to predict the behavior of partners based on long-term relationships Trust is based on identity that arises from emotional connection between those who are involved, who understand partners, who want, desire and need

knowledge-Trust relates to personal relationships and involves honesty and trust, and encourages companies to rely on others in exchange relationships Many studies have shown that trust leads to commitment Belief can be strengthened through interpersonal commitment and ultimately strengthening links within the organization Researchers often acknowledge that trust stimulates cooperative behavior among individuals, groups and organizations

Trust is set to be a part of personal relationships that regulate exchange relationships and further reduce fear and opportunistic behavior Therefore, individuals who trust each other also find that they reduce uncertainty and risks, conflicts between individuals and individuals, and between individuals and organizations, which increases mutual commitment (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) and encourage long-term cooperation (Ganesan, 1994) Therefore, awareness of belief is very important to further develop relationships

There are three types of beliefs can be distinguished, depending on how trust

For the purpose of this study, we focus on character-based trust because the context of businesses is dominated by entrepreneurs that affect businesses and its relationships in many respects When considering the consequences of trust and the meaning of commitment, we adopt a conceptual approach of belief that is a psychological structure, the result of interaction between values, attitudes, and moods and people's feelings

1.1.3 Role of belief in organization

(i) Belief is an important premise in managing and sharing information: is a prerequisite for employees to trust each other and trust in the organization Cause of trust between colleages leading to knowledge sharing in organization In particular, if the knowledge sharing process involves sharing important and confidential information, this process not only helps build trust but also develops with the presence

of faith (Sahay, 2003) Without trust, members of the organization will not share confidential information, as it poses a risk of visual and future risk of the share With trust, partners can participate in sharing more open and effective knowledge

(ii) Trust is a fundamental element to developing co-operation: Mutual trust among partners is a common element in many successful cooperation agreements First, trust before the deal starts, if a company has previous experience with partners, the two partners will have mutual trust Secondly, trust in the process of developing the agreement, when the agreement is developing, trust will increase between companies if all parties implement expectations (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994) The main benefits that trust creates in cooperation agreements are: Reduce transaction costs, minimize the risk of investing in specific assets and facilitate decision making The high level of trust allows partners to share knowledge, resources and capabilities, which have a positive impact on agreement results because partners feel safe from behavior, opportunities from each other (Stuart, 2000) Furthermore, the appropriate level of confidence helps predict partner behavior in the initial stages of the agreement and promotes the desired behavior when the agreement develops Therefore, a high level of reliability allows companies to meet their collaborative goals and improve their satisfaction with their partners

Building trust is essential to developing competitive advantage Some studies confirm that, trust is also so important in employee empowerment and customer satisfaction (Papadopoulou et al., 2001; Richards, 1995) In order to get efficiency in logistics, trust must be built in long-term relationships between suppliers and buyers

1.2 Cognitive similarity

1.2.1 Defination of Cognitive Similarity

The term "cognitive similarity - Cognitive proximity" is mentioned by Bart Nooteboom (1992), the cognitive distance between people is the result of differences in knowledge base and after the difference in absorption capacity receptor or ability to understand and apply knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) Conceive is the acquisition, interpretation and classification of knowledge; In other words, Conceive is a mental map, organizing knowledge into mental models Spirit models are representatives of the world used to control the world by making sense and predicting events (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Kelly, 1955) These models form the knowledge base, the source of expertise, action and cooperation of individuals in groups When the cognitive similarity between all adults, there will be new opportunities for co-operation, but there is a risk of failing to create a common understanding

The cognitive similarity get a achieved when everyone's knowledge has the same elements which can create common understanding, combined with various factors that allow association and learning

1.2.2 Role of Cognitive Similarity

(a) From an individual perspective in the organization:

The deference conceive can obstruct the processes of mutual learning, collaborative communication and cooperation to innovate (Skippari et al., 2017) Scholars have studied the effect of cognitive intimacy on the formation of co-operation and they show that, it has a negative impact on creating linkages in the formation phase of a term relations despite the fact that, cognitive intimacy represents the ability to communicate with other actors

However, some scholars point out the positive aspects of the relationship between conceive and results of co-operation, such as innovation, knowledge creation and general programs Perception of conceive is a relevant factor in explaining the flow of inter-organizational knowledge Moreover, at the organizational level, cognitive intimacy seems very important in facilitating mutual learning, knowledge creation and long-term co-operation

In a long-term relationship, cognitive intimacy among companies can facilitate knowledge transfer and transfer (Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006) Moreover, economic entities with the same knowledge base and specialized structure can exchange information more effectively

(b) From the perspective of relations between organizations:

Organizations with a sense of closeness to common goals and culture can develop long-term relationships and easily facilitate common activities such as joint planning, decision making and awarding problem solving The high level of conceive among companies can facilitate common decision making on new products and market development (Heringa et al., 2014)

However, a high perceived gap can be a barrier for companies to make common decisions because managers of different perceptions of supply chain operations can create conflicts and disagreements while decide operational issues (Skippari et al., 2017) These arguments show that, cognitive intimacy can be a factor that promotes decision synchronization Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis

Cognitive similarity can lead to mutual trust between partners thus create integration (Czernek and Czakon, 2016), when a company seeks co-operation, similarity co-objectives and culture can place partners with higher cognitive attitudes than others (Myhr and Spekman, 2005) The literature also shows that, mutual trust among partners refers to the accumulation of benefits and costs and the willingness to take risks (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996) Therefore, cognitive similarity intimacy facilitates a company to be willing to share benefits, costs and risks with their partners when they are in a cooperative relationship (Heringa et al., 2014)

Moreover, Callois (2008) also asserts that cognitive similarity can lead to fixed cost sharing and risk aggregation, encouraging product innovation According

to these arguments, cognitive similarity among companies can be expected to facilitate incentive links

1.3 Knowledge sharing

1.3.1 Defination of knowledge sharing

According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, 2000), knowledge is divided into two categories: clear and implicit knowledge Implicit knowledge is understood and exists in the human mind, expressed by behavior and difficult to share and spread throughout the organization It is very difficult to write down because the policy or decision-making process depends on work experience and personal characteristics; instead, it should be shared through face-to-face interpersonal interactions

However, the transfer of implicit knowledge between people is slow, costly and uncertain if it cannot be encrypted and can be obtained by practice (Grant, 1996) Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, 2000) also stated that, knowledge is the process of interpersonal interaction and the interaction between clear and implicit knowledge Knowledge creation is the result of the interaction between clear and implicit knowledge

There are four models of knowledge creation: socialization, foreignization, integration and internalization The sender of knowledge transforms his knowledge into explicit knowledge and clear knowledge through processes of socialization and foreignization, respectively

Moreover, the knowledge sender turns his clear knowledge into clear knowledge and implicit knowledge through processes called coherence and internalization It is necessary to call two different roles in this case of the sender and receiver in interpersonal interaction Sharing efficiency depends on the level of interaction and conceive between the sender and the receiver

Hendricks (1999) has a simplified knowledge-sharing model, based on the concept of communication between knowledge senders and knowledge recipients Knowledge senders provide knowledge or information to recipients of knowledge through the externalization processes of coding, demonstration, description, etc

In addition, knowledge recipients acquire knowledge or information from senders through a number of localization procedures: learning by doing, reading, explaining, etc Persons receiving knowledge are also called knowledge re-educators to describe their learning process Barriers between senders and recipients differ in time, geographical distance, social distance, language, culture and mental framework and concept (Hendricks, 1999) This two-sided model (externalization and internalization) corresponds to the formula Davenport and Prusakui (1998): Share = Transmission + Absorption

Davenport and Prusak (1998) proposed the process of knowledge sharing as

an internal knowledge market within an organization They think that knowledge flow always happens everywhere in the organization in any way that organizes its activities The direction of knowledge flow is motivated by market forces, which means that knowledge can be recognized as goods in an organization The role of the knowledgeable person in an internal knowledge market is that of the seller, and while the knowledge recipient is the buyer Market participants can get three types

of benefits, there are mutual support, prestige and altruism, after successful trading

of knowledge

However, some senders are active supporters of altruism, who provide knowledge to satisfy themselves However, recipients may not appreciate positive senders In this situation, the benefit of altruism is not obtained by recipients after successful knowledge trading Therefore, an organization should provide available time, enough space, share incentives and relevant rewarding mechanisms to enable knowledge accumulation and exchange based on the knowledge market

1.3.2 Classify of knowledge sharing

Understanding the different forms that knowledge can exist in, and thereby being able to distinguish between various types of knowledge, is an essential step for knowledge management (KM) Over the centuries many attempts have been made to classify knowledge, and different fields have focused on different dimensions This has resulted in numerous classifications and distinctions based in

philosophy and even religion Though not directly related to our purpose here, the wikipedia article on knowledge provides some interesting background reading Within business and KM, two types of knowledge are usually defined, namely

explicit and tacit knowledge The former refers to codified knowledge, such as that

found in documents, while the latter refers to non codified and often personal/experience-based knowledge

KM and organisational learning theory almost always take root in the interaction and relationship between these two types of knowledge This concept has been introduced and developed by Nonaka in the 90's (e.g Nonaka 1994) and remains a theoretical cornerstone of this discipline Botha et al (2008) point out that tacit and explicit knowledge should be seen as a spectrum rather than as definitive points Therefore in practice, all knowledge is a mixture of tacit and explicit elements rather than being one or the other However, in order to understand knowledge, it is important to define these theoretical opposites

Some researchers make a further distinction and talk of embedded knowledge This way, one differentiates between knowledge embodied in people and that embedded in processes, organizational culture, routines, etc (Horvath 2000) Gamble and Blackwell (2001) use a scale consisting of represented-embodied-embedded knowledge, where the first two closely match the explicit-tacit

Without question, the most important distinction within KM is between explicit and tacit knowledge However, I find that the embedded dimension is a valuable addition, since the managerial requirements for this type of knowledge are quite different For this reason, the discussions on this site will, when relevant, use all three categorizations of knowledge but the focus will always be primarily on the explicit-tacit dimension

1.3.3 Role of knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing is essential for a company to achieve success, since it can facilitate decision-making capabilities, build learning organizations (through a learning routine) and finally, stimulate cultural change and innovation Still, overall

performance in a company improves just when people do things differently, according to a study published by the Ivey Business Journal

Therefore, it‘s obvious that managing knowledge properly can bring a lot benefits to a company Below you can find a list with some of those we consider are the most important and able to influence the way an organization works, in a positive way

Firstly, Knowledge sharing makes decision - making faster When customers are facing problems or you have to solve an internal issue, analyze trends, understand competition or plan new strategies, you tend to look for information and resources in order to support such activities Information overload can make this process difficult

However, using knowledge again and again in repositories allows decisions to

be based on the actual experiences of the members in your organization All these tasks can be performed efficiently if it‘s easy to find what you need and, most importantly, when you need it

Secondly, it makes the organization‘s best problem-solving experiences reusable Once the corporte develop an effective solution to an issue and it turns out

to be the best one so far, it allows members in organization to use it in all future situations Avoiding redundant effort by managing knowledge properly, saves a lot

of time and budget – not to mention that it can significantly streamline work and keep employees‘ morale up

Knowledge sharing also improves communication among employees, both intradepartmental and interdepartmental The members of an organization can improve their relationship significantly by sharing and managing knowledge properly, no matter if they work in the same or different departments

1.4 Innovation

1.4.1 Define of Innovation

The theory of innovation is the foundation for the birth of the concept of innovation, which was formed in the 1911s and has a long history of development Over time, the concept of innovation is increasingly consolidated and improved

Here are the innovative concepts that are synthesized from empirical studies in the high-tech industry

According to Brilman, J (2002), "innovation is the way to apply a creative idea to help businesses develop and adapt quickly in a competitive environment."

Or simply, innovation is the first time to apply ideas to reality (Bogdanienko, J et al., 2004) Gordon and McCann (2005) concretize the concept of innovation, which

is "the combination of existing ideas or the creation of entirely new ideas to produce new products / processes."

Another concept of Damanpour and Aravind (2011) in a study of precision mechanical enterprises, "innovation is the process from creating, developing and transforming ideas into new, normative products, new process, new organizational structure or new management method ‖ When studying Chinese high-tech enterprises such as electronics, telecommunications, biopharmaceuticals, environmental technologies, Cao and Zhao (2013), have demonstrated innovation as the driving force for economic development Modern capitalism, it is associated with the ability of a country, a region or an organization to find, absorb, disseminate and apply modern technologies to create different types of innovation

Guan and Liu (2015), stated that "the innovation of an organization is based on the interaction between internal knowledge network and social knowledge, this cohesion is inseparable for formation forms of innovation " Guan and Liu's research is accredited for renewable energy and nanotechnology in the US and Singapore Or, according to Alexiev et al (2016, page 978), "innovation is the result

of a process that promotes organizational capabilities to create new products and processes that are capable of eliminating property." old products / processes out of the market ‖

From the qualitative research of Kevin A.Bryan and Jorge Lemus (2017, p 247-272), "innovation of an enterprise is the process of making improvement efforts and replacing existing products / services These efforts will be more successful if balanced with government policy ‖ So synthesizing the concepts of innovation from many empirical studies around the world, the author draws the concept of

innovation in accordance with the thesis, which is a process related to the use of resources business force to make efforts to improve and develop new products or processes for businesses

Therefore, innovation is very important and is always the biggest concern of many businesses, governments and research institutes (Hekkert and Negro, 2009) The documents demonstrate the importance of supply chain collaboration for innovation (Ramanathan and Gunasekaran, 2014; Kumar et al., 2017) These studies suggest that, opportunities for innovation are created by the general plan; sharing knowledge, information and resources; and synchronization and integration of operations

Arlbjørn et al (2011) affirms that, the integrated implementation of the supply chain is a determinant of both fundamental and incremental innovation In other words, the ability of a company to work with other supply chain members facilitates both fundamental and incremental innovation (Soosay et al., 2008)

However, the researchers also pointed out that because of the different and radical characteristics of innovation, collaborative requirements for such innovations are different (Arlbjørn et al., 2011 ; Soosay et al., 2008) For fundamental innovation to happen, knowledge sharing and information must be set

at a higher level than the requirement for increased innovation (Fang, 2008)

In other words, sharing knowledge and information among members of the supply chain is related to fundamental innovation rather than incremental innovation (Dewar and Dutton, 1986) for their cooperation companies can facilitate heterogeneous knowledge acquisition leading to radical innovation (Hao and Feng, 2016)

In keeping with these arguments, Jansen et al (2005) also said that the exchange of information helps companies avoid being limited in their knowledge, thereby creating opportunities for innovation and knowledge and developing new products completely different with existing products Based on these arguments, we propose the following hypothesis

1.4.2 Classify of Innovation

According to the classification system of Schumpeter theory (1934, 1939), innovation can be divided into 5 different categories:

- New products;

- New production methods;

- New supply sources;

- New market;

- New business method

In addition, another classification method emphasizes the difference between the two types of innovation: Incremental innovation and Radical innovations Innovative innovation builds on existing businesses' capabilities and involves small changes in technology In contrast, radical innovation represents symbolic technological changes, so it can eliminate previous obsolete technologies (Tushman and Anderson, 1986; Green et al., 1995)

According to OECD (2005), there are 4 types of innovation to distinguish: Product innovation (Product innovation); Innovation process (Process innovation); Marketing innovation (Marketing innovation) and Innovation organization (Organization innovation)

Product innovation is the introduction of a whole new product or service or significant improvements on existing goods and services This improvement relates to the characteristics of the product, specifications, component components, materials, integrated software, user-friendliness and other functional characteristics

Innovation Product creation can use new knowledge or technology, can be based

on new applications or a new combination of existing knowledge and technology Process innovation is the implementation of innovation or significant improvement on production methods or delivery methods, including important changes in technology, equipment or software Process innovation tends to reduce unit production costs, delivery costs but increase quality

In addition to manufacturing and distribution, process innovation also includes innovative innovation in ancillary activities such as purchasing, accounting, maintenance, process innovation in the field of services… are new or significant improvements in how to create or provide a service, regarding important changes in the device or software used to provide that service Specifically, the introduction of

GPS navigation devices for transport services and the development of new technologies to manage projects in a consulting company

Innovation in Marketing: is the implementation of one way New marketing

solutions involve significant changes in product design or packaging, product placement, product promotion or price Marketing innovation aims to meet customer needs better, open new market opportunities or locate products in a different way with the goal of increasing sales for businesses career

Organizational innovation: is the implementation of a new organizational

method in business operations, workplace organization or external relationships of the business Organizational innovation can increase the performance of businesses

by reducing administrative costs or transaction costs, improving workplace satisfaction and thereby improving labor productivity

According to Lugones (2012), innovation includes: Product innovation means the introduction of a new product or service that possesses specifications, components, and characteristics materials or functions that are far different from the previous products of the business or a product or service have significant improvements on existing products, even though these products / services have previously been perfected Process innovations are new processes or there are significant improvements on the existing process This involves regenerating or changing the production process or service delivery process, as a result of using new equipment, new input sources, new technology solutions or new software Innovation in the organization is the introduction of changes or novelty in the forms of production organization, governance, significant changes in organizational structure and in the implementation of decisions It includes changes in structure management and integration between different departments Innovation in trade refers to new or improved methods of distribution and sales in order to achieve customer satisfaction, increase revenue and penetrate new markets

In basically, innovation in trade is the changes in product packaging and packaging, changes in promotion and distribution (internet sales, franchising, direct sales or distribution licenses) and in the policy of fixing prices for goods and services

1.4.3 Capacity of Innovation:

(a) Define of Capacity of Innovation:

According to Papaconstantinou, G (1997), "an organization's innovation capacity is its commitment to creating new products or improving production processes It is affected by the level of human resources, the ability to learn and accumulate knowledge On a broader scale innovation can be influenced by the environment in which the organization is operating Szeto (2000) defines:

"Innovation capacity is a continuous improvement in the capabilities (Capabilities) and resources (Resources) that businesses own to explore and exploit many opportunities for development New products meet market demand ‖

According to Lawson and Samson (2001), "innovation is the ability to transform knowledge and ideas into a new product / process or system to get benefit for organizations and partners" Moreover, the ability to innovate "is the ability to absorb and assimilate outside knowledge, turn it into a new or unique idea and then use these ideas to pioneer production of new products combined with effective commercialization (Branzei and Vertinsky, 2006)

Or according to research (Mauricio et al., 2016), "innovation is the capacity of

an organization to develop forms of innovation in the market These are capacity groups: R&D, marketing capacity, production capacity, learning capacity, resource exploitation capacity and strategic building capacity

In Vietnam, Nguyen Viet Hoa (2010) defines "innovation is a process of pursuing profits based on efforts to create new products or services accepted by the market This is an overall process including many complex social activities and interactions such as research, technology deployment, design, manufacturing, marketing, commercialization, education and training This is carried out by many related organizations such as enterprises, universities, state management agencies

(b) Porposeful Capacity of Innovation:

The economy of a country, a region or a geographic area with a rapidly growing innovation capacity is attracting more skilled labor, increasing income and trade in that area In contrast, the resilience of innovation that occurs in any

country, region or geographic region will be an early warning of future difficulties and decline (Suarez, 1990) Indeed, many scientists around the world study innovation and have demonstrated that the success of a business in the knowledge-based economic era depends on how to improve innovation capacity your own creation (Azevedo et al., 2007; Danquaha and Amankwah-Amoahb, 2017)

According to Higgins (1995), an organization can only survive and thrive in the 21st century if they know how to evaluate innovation and take action to enhance that capacity by manufacture new products and be welcomed by the market Moreover, innovation capacity also holds the key to solving many urgent challenges in finding solutions to increase productivity and improve product quality, and open up many learning opportunities , technology transfer, attraction of foreign direct investment Therefore, innovation capacity is very important to create competitive capacity, allowing enterprises to compete effectively in the national market (Williams and Hare, 2012; Fernández-Mesa and Alegre, 2015) In the context of the world economy is constantly changing and competition among enterprises is increasingly fierce, innovation capacity needs to be invested appropriately, especially in key industries such as the public industry high tech

Therefore, most models of research on innovation capacity are tested in this field Therefore, we first need to learn about high-tech industry, which is the content

of the next section

1.5 Basic theory and models of innovation capacity in enterprises

1.5.1 Jantunen (2005)

Jantunen (2005) explores the relationship between the dynamics of the environment, the capacity of businesses to absorb and the capacity to innovate in a study of 217 Finnish companies in the high-tech industry such as the chemical industry, metals heavy and electronic and some low-tech industries The author uses quantitative methods, the research hypotheses are in turn tested by hierarchical linear regression analysis

Figure 1.1: Research Model of Jantunen (2005)

Jantunen absorbed capacity analysis including component competencies to handle organizational knowledge such as using knowledge, collect knowledge and tranfer knowledge (Figure 1.1) The author argues that knowledge gathering is the process of gathering information from sources inside and outside the enterprise Therefore, collecting knowledge is important for innovation because the information and knowledge collected can be used internally for business purposes Systematizing knowledge facilitates dissemination of knowledge Jantunen concludes that, an enterprise with the ability to create, integrate and use effective knowledge will have more innovation initiatives than those with limited capabilities

Besides, he argues that businesses operating in a volatile business environment should focus more on innovation than businesses operating in a stable industry or in other words the dynamics of the environment has positively pressured innovation The test results of the study only demonstrate the role of using knowledge and flexible environment when both show a positive influence on innovation capacity However, there are many unconvincing points in the research The data used is typical only, are cross sections of different industries, including high technology and low technology, so that the causal relationship or sustainability of innovation can not be achieved However, this limitation does not diminish the value of research

1.5.2 Tseng và cộng sự (2011)

Tseng et al (2011) continue to confirm the role of absorption capacity in innovation through analyzing the role of input knowledge and whether knowledge spread

really increases innovation performance (Figure 2-5) The research method is quantitative, samples were collected from 88 IC design companies in Taiwan established

in 1997-2006 This is one of the most important knowledge-intensive businesses in Taiwan today and the industry's competitiveness is largely based on innovation

The authors argue that, input knowledge as an essential endogenous resource represents the innovation capacity of enterprises The scale of input knowledge is the cost of research and development (R&D) In addition, knowledge dissemination plays a role in stimulating innovation, many basic researches of universities or research institutes, of competitors can bring useful sources of knowledge for businesses career The test results support the hypothesis of input knowledge, the effect of spreading knowledge and absorbing capacity significantly dominates the capacity of enterprise innovation

Research by Tseng et al (2011) has contributed much value to theory and practice but there are also arguments regarding the scale of input knowledge through R&D costs, while it can also measured by human capital as education level of R&D staff On the other hand, the effects of knowledge spread not only originate from businesses, but sometimes also from the Government or public research organizations

Figure 1.2 : Research Model of Tseng and partners

1.6 Method Research and Model Research of Thesis:

Base on the group of factors which affect to knowledge sharing and innovation, this thesis gives research model of the topic, as follows:

Figure 1.3: Research Method of Author

Based on 3 groups of factors of innovation, the research model is proposed with 3 hypotheses from H1 to H3 In particular, the factor groups hypothesized H1 and H2 are independent variables that directly affect the dependent variable as

"knowledge sharing" Next is the variable "Knowledge sharing" which is an independent variable that directly affects the dependent variable "innovation" In addition, consideration will be given to the characteristics of companies

Research theory:

Hypothesis H1: In an organizational environment, members with confidence

in each other and with the organization will facilitate the sharing of knowledge

Hypothesis H2: In an organizational environment, members with cognitive

similarities will positively impact knowledge sharing

Hypothesis H3: Members actively share knowledge that will facilitate to the

process of innovation in enterprises

Belief

Cogtinative

similarity

Knowledge Sharing

Innovation H1

H2

H3

Figure 1.4 : Scale structure of variables in the research model

Belief:

- Partners are honest and honest with you

- You are confidence that, the partners will

support you

- Belief in developing relationships with

partners

- Partners do not try to take advantages of your

relationship for personal benefits

- You are not surprised by the partners

- You can rely on partners because they share

knowledge with you

- I feel that partners are open and do not hide

business targets

- I feel that my partners have a positive attitude

in togerther understanding

- I believe my partners are honest

- I believe my partners are interested in togerther

respect

- I know my organization members will always

try and help me if I get troubles

- I can always trust my college members to lend

me money if I need it

- I can always rely on my college members to

make my work easier

Villena et al., 2011;

Mukherjee &Nath, 2003; Ekelund, 2002;

Rodriguez & Wilson, 2002; Wong & Sohal, 2002;

Varamaki, 2001;

Ylimaz & Hunt, 2001;

Mavondo & Rodrigo, 2001; Svensson, 2001;

Child, 2001;

Dyer and Chu, 2000;

Joshi and Stump, 1999;

Garbarino & Johnson,1999; Wetzels et al., 1998;

Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; Gulati, 1995;

McAllister, 1995;

Mayer & Davis, 1995;

Ring & Van de Ven, 1994; Morgan & Hunt, 1994;

- I feel my partners are satisfied with my

knowledge and ability

- I believe my partners are willing to accept my

expertise

- I think my partners have the necessary

knowledge / skills for our business

Boschma, 2005 Langan-Fox et al., 2001; Nooteboom, 2000;

Activities of Knowledge Sharing:

- I believe we are in usually contact and contact

with each other

- I believe we use compatible computer systems

- I think we are willing to share common

imfomation

- I think we are willing to share strategic data

- You and your partner share each other's secrets

imformation

- You and your partner share experience when

working together

Attitude of Knowledge Sharing :

- Sharing my knowledge with the members is

always good

- Sharing my knowledge with organizational

members is always beneficial

- Sharing my knowledge with the members is

always an interesting experience

- Sharing my knowledge with organizational

members is always valuable to me

- Sharing my knowledge with organizational

members is always a good action

Standard of Knowledge Sharing

- My CEO (CEO) always thinks that I should

share my knowledge with other members of the

organization

- My boss always thinks that I should share my

knowledge with other members in the company

- My colleagues always think that I should share

my knowledge with other members in the

company

Intension to share knowledge:

- I will share my work reports and official

documents with the members in company more

often in the future

- I will always share my guides, methods and

models with my company members in the

future

- I will always share my working experience or

know-how with members in the future

- I will always share my know-how or help

anyone as the request of the members

- I will always try to share my expertise and train

my members more effectively

Innovation

Basic Inovation

- We accept demands more than existing

products and services

- We invented new products and services

- We test new products and services in the local

market

- We commercialize completely new products

Kumar et al., 2017;

Hao and Feng, 2016;

Ramanathan et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2013;Arlbjørn et al, 2011; Soosay et al., 2008;