Ekkawit Maneethorn | Khemaree Rugchoochip*
| Yanapol Sangsunt | Suttipong Kiartivich | Van Louis Lo
© 2023 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
This research investigated the application of innovation in the strategic development of Pattaya City administration from the perspective of visitors who visited Pattaya City, Chonburi Province, Thailand in January 2023. The study aimed to explore the level of innovation in Pattaya City administration, its strategic development, and the impact of innovation on strategic development. The research populations comprised of 400 visitors who responded to a questionnaire, and data analysis was conducted using statistical techniques such as frequency, percentage, average, standard deviation, correlation analysis, and multiple regression analysis. The study found that innovation was implemented at a high level in Pattaya City administration, with product innovation, strategic innovation, and process innovation being the most significant areas. Moreover, the strategic development of Pattaya City administration was identified as being at a high level, with strengthening sustainable support for a livable city, promoting the organization's potential towards becoming a regional hub, and developing towards a global tourism economy being key areas. The study also identified several innovation factors that influence Pattaya City's strategic development, including service innovation, process innovation, product innovation, social innovation, strategic innovation, and philosophical innovation. Overall, the study suggests that innovation is a crucial factor in the strategic development of Pattaya City administration. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners to enhance innovation and strategic development in Pattaya City.
innovation, administration, strategic development, tourist destination, Pattaya City
This research paper focuses on studying the application of innovation in Pattaya City administration, its strategic development, and the impact of innovation on the city's strategic development.
For a long time, Pattaya City has been a popular tourist destination for both Thai people and foreigners. Its natural surroundings, beautiful beaches, and proximity to Bangkok have made it a significant contributor to the country's tourism industry. In 1978, the Pattaya City Administration Act elevated the city to the second Local Government Organization in Thailand, after Bangkok. However, the tourism industry in Pattaya City has also caused problems in various aspects, including tourism, which is vital to the nation.
According to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), Thailand was ranked ninth globally in terms of foreign visitors, with 32.6 million visitors, and third in terms of income generated from tourism, valued at 49.9 billion US dollars [1]. This highlights the potential for Thailand to become a tourism hub in ASEAN by applying innovative approaches to its tourism development, making it a leader in tourism innovation. Thailand is expected to attract more than 20 million foreign visitors this year after receiving 11.8 million in 2022.
Given the tourism potential of Pattaya City, it is crucial to study the application of innovation in its administration and strategic development. This research paper aims to contribute to this area by examining the impact of innovation on the city's strategic development and its potential to become a hub of innovation in the tourism industry. Figure 1 shows the top ten nations' rankings by the UNWTO, which reflects Thailand's significant tourism potential.
Figure 1. Pattaya City tourist attraction, beautiful beach and clean
Hence, the term "city of tourism innovation" refers to a provincial-level tourism administration that leverages innovation from other industries in the area to develop the tourism industry in the region, thereby increasing its competitiveness and efficiency. This, in turn, promotes local employment and fair income distribution [2].
Figure 2. Visitors visiting Pattaya City from around the world including senior citizens stay forever
2.1 Models of innovation
Teece stated that organizations gain profits from innovation in technology, which can help protect against competition, as well as in production and distribution channels [3].
Roberts and Berry explained that innovation acceptance comes through internal development, acquisition of other companies, patents, joint ventures, and risky investments [4].
Abernathy and Clark pointed out that organizational innovation involves knowledge of technology and marketing excellence. If an organization cannot develop technology beyond its competitors, it may collapse [5].
David Smith identified three forms of innovation as follows [6]:
1. Product Innovation: This mostly refers to products used by humans or consumers, such as washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc. Innovations in this category relate to the components and systems, which will be mentioned next in the types of innovation.
2. Service Innovation: This type of innovation involves intangible products or services. Unlike product innovation, it comes in service forms, such as changes in financial services from banks or mobile phone promotion services from companies like AIS, which allow clients to set their own promotions, etc.
3. Process Innovation: This third type of innovation, as stated by David Smith, can have a greater impact on society than the previous two types.
Innovation policy aims to promote the development, distribution, and efficiency of new product and service adoption, as well as marketing processes within both companies and public organizations [7].
2.2 Management innovation
Management innovation refers to the concept of utilizing innovation to create a competitive advantage for the organization. Management innovation encompasses an extensive range of sciences from other branches in order to obtain competitive ability, creative thinking, knowledge, products, practice guidelines, and better procedures [8].
Management innovation consists of the following:
Product innovation, which refers to the product used by humans or consumers. In this study, product innovation refers to tourist attractions or other related products.
Process innovation, which involves the application of ideas, methods, or new processes to allow for higher efficiency and effectiveness in operational processes.
Strategic innovation, which involves creating a new business organization. It involves adjusting the previous management structure to best respond to the needs of customers and service clients.
Social innovation, which pertains to any forms of people's needs. Currently, people's needs have changed due to changes in the environment.
Political innovation, which refers to the form of regulations, institutional reforms, direction of society, and governance.
Philosophy innovation, which involves new ideas with an impact on society and administration. It is concerned with how society defines what is right or wrong [9].
Service innovation, which pertains to any forms of intangible service. Innovations created for the convenience and quick access of service providers and clients provide more usefulness, such as providing information about tourist attraction places [8].
Firms can strategically use innovation to achieve competitive advantage [10, 11] and effectively compete in local and global markets [12], adapt their strategy to changing market and customer demands, create value and growth [13], and achieve superior performance [14-17]. Therefore, the strategic management of innovation represents a crucial component of a firm's strategy [18] and a major contributing factor to a firm's competitive advantage [19-21]. Consequently, the strategic management of innovation has become a central topic within the strategic management field. A systematic study on this issue would be beneficial to both academic researchers and practitioners, which is why our paper undertakes to review the innovation literature from a strategic management perspective.
We adopt Damanpour's [22] understanding of innovation: An innovation can be a new product or service, a new production process technology, a new structure or administrative system, or a new plan or program pertaining to organizational members. Since this definition accommodates different forms of innovation, it allows us to minimize the possibility of selection biases rooted in definition issues. Further, we follow Nag et al.'s [23] comprehensive definition of strategic management as a field that deals with the major intended and emergent initiatives taken and the internal organization adopted by general managers on behalf of owners, involving the utilization of resources to enhance the performance of firms in their external environments.
Combining the two definitions, we suggest that the strategic management of innovation is concerned with using appropriate strategic management techniques and measures so that the impact of the firm's innovation activities for firm growth and performance is maximized.
Several arguments speak for the theoretical and practical relevance of producing a review on the strategic management of innovation. First, over the last 20 years, the global economic regime has become increasingly liberalized, while a focus on innovation has replaced traditional cost-oriented business models in many firms [24]. Since the 1990s, these developments have triggered exponential growth in the innovation literature, and many novel topics have emerged, such as international innovation (e.g., Granstrand et al. [25]), headquarter-subsidiary relationships (e.g., Birkinshaw et al. [26], Frost and Zhou [27]), knowledge management (e.g., Kogut and Zander [28]), and 'open innovation' business models (e.g., Chesbrough [29]; von Hippel and von Krogh [30]).
Moreover, theoretical frameworks like the knowledge-based view of the firm or the dynamic capabilities perspective that emerged since then have offered many new ways of theorizing about innovation. All of these developments have led to a fragmentation of the innovation literature, so that its present state is characterized by many inconsistencies, competing theoretical frameworks, diverse conceptualizations of the determinants of innovation, and knowledge gaps [31-33]. Many studies have sought to understand the innovation process, but scholars have not yet been able to identify a clear prototypical process for the management of innovation [34]. Second, the vast majority of innovation research conducted on the organizational level of analysis has concentrated on three domains: (a) the identification of antecedents that affect the extent to which an organization is successful at technical innovation (Figure 3); (b) studies of the development of new products and/or new businesses within the established organization with a focus on authenticity-ambidexterity; (c) the impact of interfirm linkages on various types of organizational innovation [34]. This specificity seems problematic since many questions pertaining to the strategic management of innovation are still little understood, such as the relations between innovation, resources, and performance [35-38].
Figure 3. Nongnooch Tropical Garden
Third, these developments create significant problems for practitioners. Several decades of research into innovation management have failed to provide clear and consistent findings, coherent advice to managers, and convincing 'best practice' solutions [39]. For instance, firms that produce breakthrough innovations use other management practices than those that focus on incremental innovation [40]. Practitioners are therefore confronted with an overwhelmingly complex literature but no guidance or insights regarding practical implications that can be derived from this literature. Thus, managing innovation has become a 'daunting task' [41].
However, since the seminal reviews of Lengnick-Hall [20] and Wolfe [42], no comprehensive review of the strategic management of innovation has been published, although the innovation literature has grown exponentially since. There are reviews of specialized topics that all relate to innovation, such as the relationship between social capital and innovation [43], the measurement and valuation of the inputs and results of the innovation process [44, 45] (Adams et al. 2006; Johnson et al. 2002), specific types and typologies of innovation [46, 47], environmental contingencies [39], the link between innovation and national productivity [48], new product development [49, 50], individual-level cognitive aspects of innovation [51] (Anderson et al. 2004), the role of third parties in the innovation process [52, 53], the diffusion of innovations [54], open innovation [55], networking [56], the relationship between market orientation and innovation performance [57], or the role of organizational size [58, 59].
The Pattaya City Strategic Development Administration has identified five key strategies for the development and growth of the city:
1. Strengthening sustainable supporting potential: This strategy focuses on developing the necessary infrastructure to support the growth of the city, with a particular emphasis on promoting tourism and enhancing security measures to increase confidence in the city's safety.
2. Developing a world economic tourism city: This strategy aims to position Pattaya as a leading destination for tourism and innovation, with a focus on strengthening the city's image and developing it as a smart city. This strategy also includes enhancing tourist attractions and related activities.
3. Enhancing human resources potential: This strategy prioritizes improving the quality of life for Pattaya's residents, with a focus on education and promoting public participation in arts and culture conservation efforts.
4. Strengthening integrative development: This strategy aims to foster cooperation with relevant agencies, organizations, and localities to enhance the city's strength and spatial management integration.
5. Enhancing organizational potential: The final strategy focuses on improving the administration of the city and positioning Pattaya as a regional hub. This includes structural improvements to public service units and the development of more efficient service processes.
These strategies demonstrate a commitment to sustainable development, innovation, and collaboration to ensure Pattaya's continued growth and success as a tourist destination and regional hub [60].
3.1 Samples
Research samples were 400 visitors visiting Pattaya City during January 2023. Samples were selected by convenience sampling approach.
3.2 Questionnaire survey
This research applied questionnaire for data collection. It consisted of 4 parts. Part 1 was the questions about basic information of the participant. Part 2 contained the questions related to the innovation application in Pattaya City administration. Part 3 contained the questions related to strategic management for Pattaya City development. And, part 4 contained the questions related to problems, obstacles, and suggestions.
Testing on questionnaire quality was conducted using 30 sets of questionnaire to find out for the confidence of the questionnaire. It was found that the confidence coefficient of Cronbach for part 2 of the questionnaire was 0.946, part 3 was 0.957, and the confidence value of the whole questionnaire was 0.971.
3.3 Data analysis statistics
Inferential statistics:
Correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationship between the application of innovation in Pattaya City administration and strategic development of Pattaya City.
Multiple regression analysis was applied to analyze on the influences from applying innovation in Pattaya City administration toward strategic development of Pattaya City.
3.4 Results
The study results from innovation application in Pattaya City administration as the researchers conducted the study in overall pictures could be divided into 7 following aspects: 1) product innovation, 2) process innovation, 3) strategic innovation, 4) social innovation, 5) political innovation, 6) philosophical innovation, and 7) service innovation. The analysis on the application of innovation in Pattaya City administration applied average and standard deviation by dividing the levels of innovation application in Pattaya City administration as follows:
Meaning of the average scores
4.21 - 5.00 highest level, 3.41 - 4.20 high level, 2.61 - 3.40 moderate level
1.81- 2.60 low level, 1.00 - 1.80 lowest level
Results of data analysis were presented in the table with description as follows:
Table 1. Results from the study on overall levels of innovation applied in the Pattaya City administration Innovation used in administration
|
Innovation used in administration |
x̅ |
SD |
levels |
|
Product innovation |
4.58 |
0.47 |
highest |
|
Process innovation |
4.54 |
0.47 |
highest |
|
Strategic innovation |
4.55 |
0.50 |
highest |
|
Social innovation |
4.50 |
0.54 |
highest |
|
Political innovation |
4.45 |
0.61 |
highest |
|
philosophical innovation |
4.53 |
0.48 |
highest |
From Table 1, it was found that overall innovation applied in Pattaya City administration was at highest level with the average of 4.52. When considering into each aspect, product innovation was on top with the average of 4.58, second by strategic innovation at the average of 4.55, process innovation at the average of 4.54, philosophical innovation at 4.53, social innovation at 4.50, management innovation at 4.46, and lastly political innovation at the average of 4.45.
Table 2. Results of the study on the overall levels of strategic development in Pattaya City administration
|
Innovation used in administration |
Average |
Standard deviation |
levels |
|
Product innovation |
4.58 |
0.47 |
highest |
|
Process innovation |
4.54 |
0.47 |
highest |
|
Strategic innovation |
4.55 |
0.50 |
highest |
|
Social innovation |
4.50 |
0.54 |
highest |
|
Political innovation |
4.45 |
0.61 |
highest |
|
philosophical innovation |
4.53 |
0.48 |
highest |
|
service innovation |
4.46 |
0.57 |
highest |
From Table 2, overall the strategic development for the city administration was at the highest level with the average of 4.55. if considering into each aspect, all sub aspects showed with highest level of strategic management by the highest average could be seen from the aspect to “Strengthen on the sustainable supporting potential of Pattaya metropolis toward a livable city for everyone” with the average of 4.59, second by the aspect of “Strengthening the organizational potential toward the metropolis administration and becoming the regional hub” at the average of 4.56, “Promoting the integrative development with the relevant agencies, organizations and localities” at the average of 4.55, “Developing toward the world tourism economic city and regional hub metropolis” at the average of 4.54, and “continuity development of human resources potential and enhancing on populations’ quality of life” at the average of 4.52.
Results of innovation application in the administration with influences on the strategic development of Pattaya City.
Research on innovation application in the administration with influences on the strategic development of Pattaya City set to study on the following variables.
X1 refers to the score of product innovation applying into Pattaya City administration.
X2 refers to the score of process innovation
X3 refers to the score of strategic innovation
X4 refers to the score of social innovation
X5 refers to the score of political innovation
X6 refers to the score of philosophical innovation
X7 refers to the score of service innovation
Y1 refers to the score of Pattaya City strategic development on the aspect of strengthening the sustainable supporting potential of Pattaya metropolis toward a livable city for everyone (Customer).
Y2 refers to the aspect of developing toward the world tourism economic city and regional hub metropolis (Innovation).
Y3 refers to the aspect of continuity development of human resources potential and enhancing on populations’ quality of life (Human/Social Capital).
Y4 refers to the aspect of promoting the integrative development with the relevant agencies, organizations and localities (Internal process).
Y5 refers to the aspect of strengthening the organizational potential toward the metropolis administration and becoming the regional hub (Internal process).
Y refers to the score of overall strategic development of Pattaya City.
Results from the study on research hypothesis no. 1
Applying innovation into Pattaya City administration has the relationship with the strategic development of Pattaya City.
The study on the relationship of innovation adopting into Pattaya City administration and the strategic development of Pattaya City applied multiple correlation coefficient analysis. Data analysis results were presented in form of table with description and set for the levels of relationship from the following values of correlation coefficient
Correlation coefficient value (r) Relationship levels
0.00 – 0.33 low
0.34 – 0.67 moderate
0.68 – 1.00 high
Table 3. Results of relationship study between the adoption of product innovation into Pattaya City administration and the strategic development of Pattaya City
|
Variables |
Y |
Y1 |
Y2 |
Y3 |
Y4 |
Y5 |
|
X1 |
0.740* |
0.370* |
0.701* |
0.687* |
0.712* |
0.663* |
|
X2 |
0.728* |
0.375* |
0.682* |
0.661* |
0.668* |
0.690* |
|
X3 |
0.726* |
0.351* |
0.673* |
0.695* |
0.697* |
0.666* |
|
X4 |
0.753* |
0.385* |
0.689* |
0.693* |
0.723* |
0.696* |
|
X5 |
0.680* |
0.334* |
0.631* |
0.649* |
0.630* |
0.644* |
|
X6 |
0.704* |
0.325* |
0.658* |
0.684* |
0.685* |
0.651* |
|
X7 |
0.699* |
0.368* |
0.664* |
0.614* |
0.640* |
0.659* |
Remark* the statistical significance level of 0.05
From Table 3, it was found that the strategic development of Pattaya City overall had high relationship level with innovation application in Pattaya City administration in all aspects. The aspects with highest relationship were social innovation(X4) (r=0.753), second by product innovation (X1) (r=0.740), process innovation(X2) (r=0.728), strategic innovation(X3) (r=0.726), philosophical innovation (X6) (r = 0.704), service innovation (X7) (r = 0.699), and political innovation(X5) (r = 0.680), respectively.
The aspect of “strengthening the sustainable supporting potential of Pattaya metropolis toward a livable city for everyone (Customer)” showed moderate relationship with the application of innovation into Pattaya City administration in all aspects, except philosophical innovation that had low level of relationship. The aspect with highest relationship were social innovation(X4) (r=0.385), second by process innovation(X2) (r=0.375), product innovation (X1) (r=0.370), service innovation (X7) (r=0.368), strategic innovation(X3) (r=0.351), political innovation(X5) (r=0.334), and philosophical innovation (X6) (r=0.325), respectively.
The aspect of developing toward the world tourism economic city and regional hub metropolis (Innovation) had high level of relationship with innovation application into Pattaya City administration. The highest level was product innovation (X1) (r=0.701), second by social innovation (X4 (r = 0.689), and process innovation(X2) (r=0.682). Relationship in moderate level could be seen with strategic innovation(X3) (r = 0.673), service innovation (X7) (r = 0.664), philosophical innovation (X6) (r = 0.658), and political innovation(X5) (r = 0.631), respectively.
The aspect of developing toward the world tourism economic city and regional hub metropolis (Human/Social Capital) had high level of relationship with innovation applying into Pattaya City administration on the aspect of strategic innovation(X3) (r = 0.695), second by social innovation(X4) (r = 0.693), product innovation (X1) (r = 0.687), philosophical innovation (X6) (r = 0.684). Whiles, it had moderate relationship level with process innovation(X2) (r = 0.661), political innovation(X5) (r = 0.649), and service innovation (X7) (r = 0.614), respectively.
The aspect of “promoting the integrative development with the relevant agencies, organizations and localities (Internal process)” showed with high level of relationship to the application of innovation into Pattaya City administration on the aspect of social innovation(X4) (r = 0.723), second by product innovation (X1) (r = 0.721), strategic innovation(X3) (r = 0.697), and philosophical innovation (X6) (r = 0.685). Whiles, it had moderate level of relationship with process innovation(X2) (r = 0.668), service innovation (X7) (r = 0.640), and political innovation(X5) (r = 0.630), respectively.
The aspect of “strengthening the organizational potential toward the metropolis administration and becoming the regional hub (Internal process) showed high level of relationship with innovation application into Pattaya City administration on process innovation(X2) (r = 0.690) and social innovation(X4) (r = 0.696). While it had moderate relationship level with strategic innovation(X3) (r = 0.666), product innovation (X1) (r = 0.663), service innovation (X7) (r = 0.659), philosophical innovation (X6) (r = 0.651), and political innovation(X5) (r = 0.644), respectively.
Results from the study on research hypothesis no. 2
Applying innovation in the administration had an influence on Pattaya City strategic development.
For the study on the influences of innovation applying into Pattaya City administration toward strategic development of Pattaya City, multiple regression analysis was used. The results were presented in form of table with description as follows:
Table 4. The study on the influences of innovation application into Pattaya City administration toward strategic development of Pattaya City in overall
|
Prediction variables |
coefficient regression |
Statistic (t) |
p-value |
|
Constant |
0.444 |
3.533 |
0.000 |
|
product innovation (X1) |
0.163 |
4.204 |
0.000* |
|
process innovation(X2) |
0.164 |
4.318 |
0.000* |
|
strategic innovation(X3) |
0.123 |
3.215 |
0.001* |
|
social innovation(X4) |
0.162 |
4.647 |
0.000* |
|
political innovation(X5) |
0.008 |
0.255 |
0.799* |
|
philosophical innovation (X6) |
0.116 |
3.212 |
0.001* |
|
service innovation (X7) |
0.173 |
5.805 |
0.000* |
|
Correlation coefficient (R) = 0.867 Statistic (F) = 169.092 Decision coefficient (R2) = 0.751 p-value = 0.000* |
|||
Remark significance level at 0.05
From Table 4, it was found that the factor of innovation applying in Pattaya City administration had the influences on the strategic development of Pattaya City in overall were production innovation (X1), process innovation(X2), strategic innovation(X3), social innovation(X4), philosophical innovation (X6), and service innovation (X7). By service innovation (X7) had the highest influence (B = 0.173, t = 5.805, p-value = 0.000), second by process innovation(X2) (B = 0.164, t = 4.381, p-value = 0.000), product innovation (X1) (B = 0.163, t = 4.204, p-value = 0.000), social innovation(X4) (B = 0.162, t = 4.647, p-value = 0.000), strategic innovation(X3) (B = 0.123, t = 3.215, p-value = 0.001), and philosophical innovation (X6) (B = 0.116, t = 3.212, p-value = 0.001), respectively.
Innovation applied in Pattaya City administration was at highest level. When considering into each aspect, product innovation was on top, second by strategic innovation, process innovation, philosophical innovation, social innovation, management innovation, and lastly political innovation.
The strategic development for the city administration was at the highest level. When considering into each aspect, all sub aspects showed with highest level of strategic management by the highest average could be seen from the aspect to “Strengthen on the sustainable supporting potential of Pattaya metropolis toward a livable city for everyone”, second by the aspect of “Strengthening the organizational potential toward the metropolis administration and becoming the regional hub”, “Promoting the integrative development with the relevant agencies, organizations and localities”, “Developing toward the world tourism economic city and regional hub metropolis”, and “continuity development of human resources potential and enhancing on populations’ quality of life”
The strategic development of Pattaya City overall had high relationship level with innovation application in Pattaya City administration in all aspects. The aspects with highest relationship were social innovation, second by product innovation, process innovation, strategic innovation philosophical innovation, service innovation, and political innovation, respectively.
The factor of innovation applying in Pattaya City administration had the influences on the strategic development of Pattaya City in overall were production innovation, process innovation, strategic innovation, social innovation, philosophical innovation and service innovation. Service innovation (X7) had the highest influence (B = 0.173, t = 5.805, p-value = 0.000), second by process innovation (B = 0.164, t = 4.381, p-value = 0.000), product innovation (B = 0.163, t = 4.204, p-value = 0.000), social innovation (B = 0.162, t = 4.647, p-value = 0.000), strategic innovation (B = 0.123, t = 3.215, p-value = 0.001), and philosophical innovation (B = 0.116, t = 3.212, p-value = 0.001), respectively.
Innovation applied in Pattaya City administration was at highest level. It can be concluded product innovation was on top. It means that Pattaya City has provide attractive beaches, beautiful natural tourism, beaches were sand fill more than 35 meters length which can lay down leisurely. Moreover, there are many perfect restaurants which can be selected by diversified visitors, second strategic innovation which means that there are many dynamic activities for example aerial, land and water activities, and lastly political innovation, this means that Pataya City Administrator has to support more participation from diversity nationality, strengthen good governance and listen more from variety of nationality.
The strategic development for the city administration was at the highest level. When considering into each aspect, all sub aspects showed with highest level of strategic management by the highest average could be seen from the aspect to “Strengthen on the sustainable supporting potential of Pattaya metropolis toward a livable city for everyone” this means that there are perfect infrastructure like motor way which connect Bangkok to Pattaya conveniently. Also there are underground road to avoid traffic jam and providing water safety center by arranging life guard, second by the aspect of “Strengthening the organizational potential toward the metropolis administration and becoming the regional hub”, “Promoting the integrative development with the relevant agencies, organizations and localities”, “Developing toward the world tourism economic city and regional hub metropolis”, and “continuity development of human resources potential and enhancing on populations’ quality of life”.
The strategic development of Pattaya City overall had high relationship level with innovation application in Pattaya City administration in all aspects. The aspects with highest relationship were social innovation by arranging social order cooperated with foreign volunteer to provide varieties of services, managing income distribution to community area fairly, supporting group activities, roles and community partication. Pattaya City has beautiful natural attractions and sea filled that being extended for 35 meters in order to gain more beach areas to handle for more tourists. There are plenty of department stores, products distribution places, and restaurants to serve for the needs of visitors in all tourism forms. Next factor with influences on the strategic development for Pattaya City administration was the adoption of social innovation, while Pattaya City had social organization in form of cooperation forming with all sectors including volunteer foreigners. As a result, this created well understanding, attitude, and cooperation between Pattaya City and other sectors. Thus, the factor of adopting strategic innovation laid the policy on environmental management, promoting Pattaya City’s image, and cooperation between Pattaya City and other stakeholders allowed for the concrete implementation such as setting air condition measuring system, building the conference and seminar center, arranging for the Sky walk, etc. For the aspect of philosophical innovation, Pattaya City is the tourism attraction with diversity in concepts either from art or culture, sciences, and social science; thus, the administration focuses on diversity nationalities, religions, and cultures where these have influenced on Pattaya City strategic development administration.
The factor of innovation applying in Pattaya City administration had the influences on the strategic development of Pattaya City in overall were production innovation, process innovation, strategic innovation, social innovation, philosophical innovation and service innovation. Service innovation had the highest influence second by process innovation, product innovation, social innovation, strategic innovation, and philosophical, respectively. Service innovation applied by Pattaya City containing policy management focused on the acceptance of diversity in nationalities, religions, and cultures (Figure 4). Moreover, to arrange for the tourism that mixed between sciences and social science which had much influences on the strategic development of Pattaya City. This conformed to process innovation that Pattaya City had the policy to build tourist attraction with diversity and to arrange for the amusement activities and new forms of sport, including public communication with the society. This promoted good attitude of visitors toward Pattaya City. On the part of product innovation applying into the administration, since Pattaya is the tourism city with tourism attractions and other compositions related to tourism, thus it is very important.
Figure 4. Pattaya City Reclamation Innovation
We thank all visitors who answer questionnaires for us, also thank co-researchers to help reviews the literature and analyze data until this research has been done successfully.
[1] Kanchanalai, K. (2017). Guideline for the Development of Phuket Province toward Tourism Innovation City. Phuket Information.
[2] Noipayak, W. (2017). Tourism Innovation. http://www.etatjournal.com/upload/221/9_TravelInnovation.pdf, 2560.
[3] Teece, D.J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6): 285-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2
[4] Roberts, E.B., Berry, C.A. (1985). Entering new businesses: Selecting strategies for success. Sloan Management Review (pre-1986), 26(3): 3-17.
[5] Abernathy, W.J., Clark, K.B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1): 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(85)90021-6
[6] David, S. (2006). Exploring Innovation. McGraw-Hill Education.
[7] Lundvall, B.Å., Borrás, S. (1998). The globalising learning economy: Implications for innovation policy. Report from DG XII. Commission of the European Union.
[8] Chanwichein, J. (2016). Teaching Material for the Subject of Innovation Management. Rajapark Institute. Bangkok.
[9] Manrrthorn, E., Rugchoochip, K. (2021). Management Innovation. Triple Group.
[10] Hitt, M.A., Ricart i Costa, J.E., Nixon, R.D. (1998). The New frontier. In Hitt, M.A.
[11] Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives, 13(1): 43-57. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1999.1567311
[12] Subramaniam, M., Venkatraman, N. (1999). The influence of leveraging tacit overseas knowledge for global new product development capability: An empirical examination. Boston University, School of Management.
[13] Amit, R., Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7): 493-520. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.187
[14] Grimm, C.M., Smith, K.G. (1997). Strategy as action: Industry rivalry and coordination. South-Western College Pub.
[15] Lee, H., Smith, K.G., Grimm, C.M., Schomburg, A. (2000). Timing, order and durability of new product advantages with imitation. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1): 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200001)21:1%3C23::AID-SMJ64%3E3.0.CO;2-0
[16] Roberts, P.W. (1999). Product innovation, product–market competition and persistent profitability in the US pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7): 655-670. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199907)20:7%3C655::AID-SMJ44%3E3.0.CO;2-P
[17] Zahra, S.A., Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 925-950. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556420
[18] Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. Harvard Business School Press.
[19] Elenkov, D.S., Manev, I.M. (2005). Top management leadership and influence on innovation: The role of sociocultural context. Journal of Management, 31(3): 381-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272151
[20] Lengnick-Hall, C.A. (1992). Innovation and competitive advantage: What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of Management, 18(2): 399-429. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800209
[21] Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press.
[22] Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 555-590. https://doi.org/10.5465/256406
[23] Nag, R., Hambrick, D.C., Chen, M.J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9): 935-955. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.615
[24] McGrath, R.G., Tsai, M.H., Venkataraman, S., MacMillan, I.C. (1996). Innovation, competitive advantage and rent: A model and test. Management Science, 42(3): 389-403. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.3.389
[25] Granstrand, O., Håkanson, L., Sjölander, S. (1993). Internationalization of R&D—a survey of some recent research. Research Policy, 22(5-6): 413-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)90010-F
[26] Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., Jonsson, S. (1998). Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: the role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3): 221-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199803)19:3%3C221::AID-SMJ948%3E3.0.CO;2-P
[27] Frost, T.S., Zhou, C. (2005). R&D co-practice and ‘reverse’ knowledge integration in multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 676-687. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400168
[28] Kogut, B., Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
[29] Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation. Harvard University Press.
[30] Hippel, E.V., Krogh, G.V. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2): 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992
[31] Andries, P., Debackere, K. (2006). Adaptation in new technology-based ventures: Insights at the company level. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2): 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00122.x
[32] Fagerberg, J., Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies—The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2): 218-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.006
[33] Haghseta, F., Choucri, N. (2007). Organizational innovation. In: Choucri, N., Mistree, D., Haghseta, F., Mezher, T., Baker, W.R., Ortiz, C.I. (eds) Mapping Sustainability. Alliance For Global Sustainability Bookseries, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6071-7_5
[34] Gupta, A.K., Tesluk, P.E., Taylor, M.S. (2007). Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organization Science, 18(6): 885-897. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0337
[35] Argyres, N.S., Silverman, B.S. (2004). R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8-9): 929-958. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.387
[36] Criscuolo, P., Narula, R. (2007). Using multi-hub structures for international R&D: Organisational inertia and the challenges of implementation. MIR: Management International Review, 47(5): 639-660.
[37] Frost, T.S., Birkinshaw, J.M., Ensign, P.C. (2002). Centers of excellence in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11): 997-1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.273
[38] Nerkar, A., Paruchuri, S. (2005). Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science, 51(5): 771-785. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0354
[39] Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: Environment, organization and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3): 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00062
[40] Leifer, R., Rice, M. (1999). 15 Unnatural Acts: Building the Mature Firm’s Capability for Breakthrough Innovation. In Hitt, M.A., Clifford, P.G., Nixon, R.D., Coyne, K.P. (eds), Dynamic Strategic Resources.
[41] Drazin, R., Schoonhoven, C.B. (1996). Community, population, and organization effects on innovation: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1065-1083. https://doi.org/10.5465/256992
[42] Wolfe, R.A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3): 405-431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00624.x
[43] Zheng, W. (2010). A social capital perspective of innovation from individuals to nations: where is empirical literature directing us? International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(2): 151-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00247.x
[44] Adams, R., Bessant, J., Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1): 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00119.x
[45] Johnson, L.D., Neave, E.H., Pazderka, B. (2002). Knowledge, innovation and share value. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2): 101-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00080
[46] Garcia, R., Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19: 110-132.
[47] Yu, D., Hang, C.C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12: 435-452.
[48] Denyer, D., Neely, A. (2004). Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity performance in the UK. Available at SSRN 640091.
[49] Ernst, H. (2002). Success factors of new product development: A review of the empirical literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1): 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00075
[50] Page, A.L., Schirr, G.R. (2008). Growth and development of a body of knowledge: 16 years of new product development research, 1989-2004. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3): 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00297.x
[51] Anderson, N., De Dreu, C.K., Nijstad, B.A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of organizational Behavior, 25(2): 147-173. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.236
[52] Bogers, M., Afuah, A., Bastian, B. (2010). Users as innovators: A review, critique, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 36(4): 857-875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309353944
[53] Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5): 715-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
[54] O'neill, H.M., Pouder, R.W., Buchholtz, A.K. (1998). Patterns in the diffusion of strategies across organizations: Insights from the innovation diffusion literature. Academy of Management Review, 23(1): 98-114. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.192963
[55] Dahlander, L., Gann, D.M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6): 699-709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013
[56] Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3-4): 137-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x
[57] De Luca, L.M., Verona, G., Vicari, S. (2010). Market orientation and R&D effectiveness in High-Technology firms: An empirical investigation in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(3): 299-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00718.x
[58] Camisón-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcamí, R., Segarra-Ciprés, M., Boronat-Navarro, M. (2004). A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size. Organization Studies, 25(3): 331-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604040039
[59] Keupp, M.M., Palmié, M., Gassmann, O. (2012). The strategic management of innovation: A systematic review and paths for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4): 367-390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00321.x
[60] Pattaya City. (2023). https://pattaya.go.th.
