| Literature DB >> 36211714 |
Abstract
It is challenging to run a business during the COVID-19 pandemic, because the owners and the small business leaders must be responsible for success. Leaders need to innovate and look for sources of innovation, including practical inventions, such as innovation cloning. In this study, innovation cloning consisting of creativity cloning and implementation cloning is analyzed for its relationship to business success, in the form of owner's interest and financial performance perspectives. This study aims to reveal the role of innovation cloning, creativity cloning, and implementation cloning in achieving business success based on the owner's interest and financial performance. The study uses an explanatory survey. The number of samples is 155 entrepreneurs/small business leaders in Bandung City, Indonesia. Snowball sampling is carried out to obtain the data. Data processing uses descriptive statistics and multiple regression with the help of SPSS and Amos 23 software. This study found that creativity cloning and implementation cloning affected the owner's interest, and implementation cloning affected financial performance. In contrast, creativity cloning does not affect financial performance. Creativity cloning and implementation cloning are correlated with each other. Creativity cloning and implementation cloning are proved to be one unit of cloning innovation. The leader's expertise in choosing the object to be cloned and adapting it to consumer needs will facilitate company goals. Utilizing innovation, cloning, and modifying it is a practical way for small businesses to succeed. This research needs to be continued to see if there is a continuous pattern in these findings so those findings can be generalized.Entities:
Keywords: Creativity; Customer-oriented; Financial performance; Implementation; Innovation cloning; Owner’s interest
Year: 2022 PMID: 36211714 PMCID: PMC9532829 DOI: 10.1186/s13731-022-00245-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Innov Entrep ISSN: 2192-5372
Fig. 1Framework of the study
Sample distribution on small business
| Type of small business | Sum of unita | Sum of the sample (unit) |
|---|---|---|
| Retail | 411 | 42 |
| Wholesaling | 49 | 5 |
| Service | 147 | 15 |
| Manufacture | 518 | 53 |
| Other | 391 | 40 |
| Total | 1516 | 155 |
aBPS_Kota_Bandung (2021)
Source of instrumentation
| Construct | Source |
|---|---|
| Innovation cloning | |
| Creativity cloning (CC): | |
| Ideas, imagination, Idea adoption | Bhatnagar and Gopalaswamy ( |
| Idea-development, new activity | Björk and Magnusson ( |
| Implementation cloning (IC): | |
| Product | TerBraak and Deleersnyder ( |
| Product attributes | TerBraak and Deleersnyder ( |
| Processes | Bhatnagar and Gopalaswamy ( |
| Technology, market share | Bhatnagar and Gopalaswamy ( |
| Organization and services | Bhatnagar and Gopalaswamy ( |
| Business success | |
| Financial performance-organisation (Fn): | |
| Capital added, profit, sales, market share, planning | Amato et. al. ( |
| Owner’s interest (OI): | |
| Self-satisfaction, stakeholder satisfaction, social effect, confidence, independence, innovative orientation, flexibilities, and lifestyle | Coy et. al. ( |
Source: Compilation of literature, 2021
Sample characteristics of SMEs entrepreneur in Indonesia (N = 155)
| Frequency | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Entrepreneurial characteristics | ||
| Gender | ||
| Male | 92 | 59 |
| Female | 63 | 41 |
| Average age of entrepreneur (years) | 30 | 58 |
| Level of education | ||
| Graduate degree | 108 | 70 |
| High school | 47 | 30 |
| Entreprise characteristics | ||
| The average age of business (years) | 5 | 67 |
| Type of business | ||
| Retailing | 42 | 27 |
| Wholesaling | 5 | 3 |
| Service | 15 | 10 |
| Manufacture | 53 | 34 |
| Others | 40 | 26 |
| Average of labor/human resources | 8 | |
| Occupation | ||
| Manager | 48 | 31 |
| Owner | 107 | 69 |
| Source of capital | ||
| Grant | 13 | 8 |
| Debt | 18 | 12 |
| Own | 124 | 80 |
| Market share | ||
| Local | 137 | 88 |
| National | 18 | 12 |
| Average of sales (USD/month) | 1150 | |
| Sales | ||
| Fix | 57 | 37 |
| Decrease | 60 | 39 |
| Increase | 38 | 25 |
Mean score for creativity cloning
| Indicators | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Ideas | 2.935 | 1.024 |
| Imagination | 4.116 | 0.868 |
| Idea adoption | 4.000 | 0.845 |
| Idea development | 3.335 | 0.840 |
| New activity | 3.348 | 0.641 |
| Average | 3.547 | 0.843 |
5 = very-important, 4 = important, 3 = mildly important, 2 = not very-important, 1 = unimportant
Mean score for implementation cloning
| Indicators | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Product | 4.355 | 0.787 |
| Product of attribute | 4.265 | 0.861 |
| Process | 4.226 | 0.894 |
| Technology | 4.084 | 0.987 |
| Market | 3.852 | 0.952 |
| Organization | 3.923 | 0.957 |
| Services | 4.084 | 0.813 |
| Rata–rata | 4.112 | 0.893 |
Mean score business success in financial
| Indicators | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Increase for capital | 4.200 | 0.841 |
| Profit | 4.084 | 0.882 |
| Omzet | 3.916 | 0.868 |
| Market share | 3.923 | 0.957 |
| Planning | 4.084 | 0.813 |
| Average | 4.041 | 0.872 |
Mean score business success in owner’s interest
| Indicators | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Owner satisfaction | 4.355 | 0.787 |
| Stakeholder satisfaction | 4.265 | 0.861 |
| Social impact | 4.123 | 0.870 |
| Confidence | 4.000 | 0.845 |
| Independence | 3.948 | 0.889 |
| Innovative orientation | 4.045 | 0.784 |
| Flexibylities | 4.084 | 0.897 |
| Life style | 4.258 | 0.844 |
| Average | 4.135 | 0.847 |
Fig. 2Influence model of innovation cloning and business success
Result of hypotheses test
| Standardized total effects | Correlations | Squared multiple correlations | Notes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fn ← CC | 0.130 | 0.842 | Rejected H1 | ||
| OI ← Fn | 0.196 | − 0.089 | Rejected H6 | ||
| OI ← CC | *** | 0.151 | Accepted H2 | ||
| Fn ← IC | *** | 0.861 | Accepted H3 | ||
| OI ← IC | *** | 0.845 | Accepted H4 | ||
| CC ↔ IC | 0.284 | Accepted H5 | |||
| Fn | 0.741 | Accepted H7 | |||
| OI | 0.810 | Accepted H8 |
***p < 0.01
Model feasibility test index
| No | Criteria | Cut off value | Model result | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chi-square ( | Statistics expected small (< table value) | 3.938 | A small value expected |
| 2 | ≥ 0.05 | 0.140 | No difference between the data and the model | |
| 3 | Cr | ≤ 2.58 | 2.408 | Normal data distribution |
| 4 | CMIN/DF | ≤ 2.00 | 1.969 | Good |
| 5 | GFI | ≥ 0.90 | 0.988 | Good |
| 6 | RMSEA | ≤ 0.08 | 0.079 | Good |
| 7 | AGFI | ≥ 0.90 | 0.938 | Good |
| 8 | TLI | ≥ 0.90 | 0.988 | Good |
| 9 | CFI | ≥ 0.90 | 0.996 | Good |
Source: Hair et. al. (2010)