Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Tourism: The Case of a Danish Caravan Site

Bodil

Description

Resumen
La industria del turismo está conformada por muchas pequeñas y medianas empresas (PI-MES). Además, la industria del turismo a menudo es menos innovadora que otras industrias PIMES y la falta de motivación, conocimientos y recursos son, a menudo, las principales causas por las que la esta industria no es muy innovadora. Al mismo tiempo, sin embargo, existe un vacío em cuanto a datos en relación com las PIMES y la innovación. Con el fin de contribuir a la provisión de esta carencia de co-nocimiento, el presente documento se basa en el caso de una empresa innovadora. El estudio revela una serie de causas que la han llevado a obtener esta característica y, además, sugiere cómo estos hallazgos pueden trascender el caso de la citada empresa.
Abstract
The tourism industry contains many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMTEs). Further-more, the tourism industry is often said to be less innovative than other industries and SMTEs’ lack of motivation, knowledge and resources are often claimed to be the reasons why the industry is not very innovative. At the same time, though, rich and thick data on SMTEs and innovativeness is lacking. In order to contribute to the filling of this knowledge gap, this paper draws on a case company (a Danish caravan site) that has been innovative. The study reveals a series of reasons why this specific enterprise has been innovative and further, the paper suggests how these findings may transcend the case company.

Sujets

• Entrepreneurship
• Innovation
• Hospitality
• Case study
• Innovación
• Hospitalidad
• Caso de estudio

Informations

• Publié par: erevistas
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2009
• Nombre de lectures: 21
• Langue: English

Extrait

Vol. 7 Nº3 págs. 415- 431. 2009

www.pasosonline.org



Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Tourism: The Case of a Danish
Caravan Site



iBodil Stilling Blichfeldt
University of Southern Denmark (DK)






Abstract: The tourism industry contains many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMTEs).
Furthermore, the tourism industry is often said to be less innovative than other industries and SMTEs’ lack of
motivation, knowledge and resources are often claimed to be the reasons why the industry is not very
innovative. At the same time, though, rich and thick data on SMTEs and innovativeness is lacking. In
order to contribute to the filling of this knowledge gap, this paper draws on a case company (a Danish
caravan site) that has been innovative. The study reveals a series of reasons why this specific enterprise
has been innovative and further, the paper suggests how these findings may transcend the case company.

Keywords: Entrepreneurship; Innovation; Hospitality; SMTEs; Case study.


Resumen: La industria del turismo está conformada por muchas pequeñas y medianas empresas
(PIMES). Además, la industria del turismo a menudo es menos innovadora que otras industrias PIMES y la
falta de motivación, conocimientos y recursos son, a menudo, las principales causas por las que la esta
industria no es muy innovadora. Al mismo tiempo, sin embargo, existe un vacío em cuanto a datos en
relación com las PIMES y la innovación. Con el fin de contribuir a la provisión de esta carencia de
conocimiento, el presente documento se basa en el caso de una empresa innovadora. El estudio revela una
serie de causas que la han llevado a obtener esta característica y, además, sugiere cómo estos hallazgos
pueden trascender el caso de la citada empresa.

Palabras clave: Emprendeduría; Innovación; Hospitalidad; PIMES; Caso de estudio.




i Associate Professor, Ph.D, M.Sc. Bodil Stilling Blichfeldt. Department of Business Communication and Information
Science. University of Southern Denmark. Niels Bohrs Vej 9, 6700, Esbjerg, Denmark. Email: [e-mail].

© PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. ISSN 1695-7121 416 Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Tourism:…

Introduction instrument of entrepreneurship”. In the
same vein, Sundbo (2009:438) argues that
Undoubtedly, innovation is one of the “innovation requires entrepreneurship
longest standing business mantras. But through which somebody struggles to
realwhy is innovation so important? Innovation ize the idea as a business idea”.
Entreprehas to do with doing things differently (and neurs are often described as people who ‘do
hopefully better) and thus, innovation is a something new’ and thus create new value
key that unlocks growth (Heskett, 1986; (Wickham, 2004) and growth (Ioannides &
Sundbo, 2009; Voss & Zomerdijk, 2007). Petersen, 2003). Hence, the basic idea is
Although we might want growth to be sus- that entrepreneurs create new wealth
betainable, ethically and morally correct, or cause their innovative efforts challenge ‘the
going in a specific direction, most destina- old order’ (Wickham, 2004). This approach
tions want their tourism industry to expe- to entrepreneurship dates back to the
rience growth. As such, many destinations works of scholars such as, for example,
want more tourists and/or tourists that Kirzner (1979) and Schumpeter (1934).
spend more while visiting the destination According to Kirzner (1979) the
entrepreand hence, status quo becomes a term with neur is someone who is alert to profitable
negative conations and decline is to be opportunities. Furthermore, Schumpeter
avoided altogether. And innovation (to suc- (1934) argued that the entrepreneur is an
cessfully bring inventions into the market) innovator, i.e. a person that brings about
is the mean to the desirable growth (Hja- change by means of new processes and/or
lager, 2009; Sundbo, 2009). Accordingly, products. Curran and Stanworth (1989, p.
one of the worst lines of criticism any in- 12) state that entrepreneurship “refers to
dustry can be subject to probably is that it the creation of a new economic entity
cenlacks innovativeness (or that it is less inno- tered on a novel product or service or, at
vative than other industries). However, the very least, one which differs
significantindustries are not – per se – innovative. ly from products or services offered
elseInstead, most innovations are introduced where in the market”. Accordingly, a
cenby individual companies (i.e. the innova- tral tenet of entrepreneurship is that it
tors, first movers, or rule breakers as they involves innovation (regardless of whether
are often labeled) and subsequently, such this is radical or only incremental) and the
innovations – if successful – are adopted, or start-up of a ‘new’ enterprise. Due to the
copied, by competitors. In the words of emphasis on ‘newness’ of the enterprise,
Sundbo (2009) the entrepreneur is an indi- studies on entrepreneurship (apart from
vidual agent of change. Innovation is fur- those focusing on ‘intrapreneurship’)
typithermore dynamic in nature (even patents cally focus on small enterprises. However,
will expire some day) and competitive first- as Wickham (2004: 102) reminds us: “The
mover advantages will be eroded – or at size of a business is a poor guide as to
least so the textbooks say. Accordingly, whether it is entrepreneurial or not”.
Accreative destruction (Hjalager, 2009; cordingly, a small enterprise may not be
Schumpeter, 1934) created by innovators is entrepreneurial at all. On the contrary,
what unlocks the growth potential of indi- Wickham (2004) argues that some critical
vidual enterprises and – at a more aggre- issues separate the entrepreneurial
vengated level – of industries. The purpose of ture from other small businesses. These
this paper is to contribute to our under- issues are that the entrepreneurial
enterstanding of (lack of) innovation and growth prise goes beyond other small businesses in
in the tourism industry by means of an in- terms of growth potential, strategic
objecdepth study of innovation at the smallest tives, and innovation. In practice, this
level of aggregation – i.e. in one entrepre- means that a small business (for example
thneurial enterprise. the 37 bed & breakfast operation
estabAlthough an unambiguous definition of lished in a specific area within the last 7
entrepreneurship does not exist, most re- years) may not be entrepreneurial at all if
searchers agree on Drucker’s (1985: 27) it is operated and organized in the same
suggestion that “innovation is the specific way as the other 36 B&Bs; if it does not
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 7(3). 2009 ISSN 1695-7121

Bodil Stilling Blichfeldt 417

offer customers anything ‘new’ compared to oriented entrepreneurs (Ateljevic &
the offerings of the other B&Bs; and if it is Doorne, 2001). Shaw & Williams (1998)
only initiated in order to make an addition- identified both ’non-entrepreneurs’ (i.e.
al income by means of renting out existing, (semi)retired in-migrants to the
destinaspare rooms. Gaining knowledge on this tion) and ’constrained entrepreneurs’ (i.e.
th37 B&B will not advance knowledge on younger entrepreneurs constrained by
mininnovation and entrepreneurship in tour- imum business skills and shortage of
capiism. Instead, we need to identify and inves- tal). Furthermore, both Stallinbrass (1980)
tigate the truly entrepreneurial SMTEs if and Morrison et al (1999) argue that many
we wish to further research. Emphasizing SMTEs are run by lifestyle entrepreneurs,
the differences between SMTEs in general who are driven by self-employment as a
and entrepreneurial and innovative way of life, not by economic motives.
AccorSMTEs, the aim of this paper is to further dingly, rejection of growth objectives by
knowledge on innovativeness and entre- these SMTEs qualifies as a deliberate
decipreneurship in tourism by means of a sin- sion. In the same vein, McDaniel (2000)
gle case study of one SMTE that is entre- argues that most SMTEs are happy to run
preneurial. operations in the same way as competitors
do. These findings are also supported by
Small Tourism Enterprises and Innovation Ioannides & Petersen (2003), who argue
that many SMTEs qualify mainly as
addiThe tourism industry is often said to be tional sources of income during the summer
less innovative than other industries (Hja- season; that lifestyle motivation
predomilager, 2002, 2009; Tetzschner & Herlau, nates; and that most SMTEs are
family2003). Furthermore, many tourism busi- owned micro-business. Across these
differnesses comply with ‘standard’ definitions of ent studies, a key finding is that few
small businesses because they are small in SMTEs exhibit innovative traits and that
terms of both number of employees (usually only a