IRPFinalWebsite

“I have to show my staff my commitment so that hopefully they will reciprocate. I don’t
always feel like I can rely on my staff, so it appears I’m micro-managing.”
(interview S Boom)
Conversely, issues surrounding regulatory obstacles appear to be less of a concern;
it is widely perceived that even if bans are enforced on sharing economy practises
(Guttentag, 2013) the government often displays a ‘turn a blind eye’ attitude to
enforcing it and that there is always a way around regulations (interviews S Boom
and A Chareonphan). To some extent, this may indicate a certain level of risk at which
operators in Thailand are comfortable.
Finally, income inequality in Thailand renders the internal market small and therefore
only able to capture the relatively few middle to high income earners in the country,
supporting a growing theme that Thailand’s best tourism innovation hope may be
to address its inbound market (interview with S Boom).
3.7 CONCLUSIONS
It is apparent that many barriers to innovation exist in Thailand and that these issues
are interconnected and deeply culturally entrenched. From only a small selection of
interviewees the data is insufficient from which to draw precise theory. However,
there are points of overlap between the insights from the literature review and the
experts’ perspectives that help answer the central questions of this research project:
1. In light of Digital Realities’ complexity and expense (Evans, 2017), as well as
seemingly minimal tourism industry concern about its impact, the argument that
travel’s future is increasingly about creating greater human connection is persuasive
because as Gareth Lymer observes, connecting with other humans is ‘a hard wired
human trait to which we will always revert back’. This also aligns with MacCannell’s
observation from 1973 about a tourist’s desire to experience authenticity, with
little evidence to suggest that instinct changing since it was observed 50 years ago
(MacCannell, 1973).
2. The role of corporate culture on innovation in Thailand is emerging as even
more important than the Literature Review suggests, highlighted by experience
of dysfunctional interpersonal relationships at work by Thai Experts. This is likely
explained through Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, particularly across the Power/
Distance relationship and the Uncertainty Avoidance dimensions, and is supported
by Englen et al’s work suggesting that entrepreneurial orientation in Thailand is also
influenced by national cultural characteristics (Englen et al, 2015).
3. Whilst there is awareness of differences in innovative outcomes between
Thailand and Western countries, Thai interviewees revealed little knowledge of
modern pillars of innovation, whilst those experts consulted outside of Thailand
support the literature review’s findings of empathy and trust as units of value in
innovation (Diekhöner, 2017). According to Hayton et al, previous Western innovation
paradigms have not succeeded in Thailand, which may suggest an alternative
approach involving localisation could be helpful for future efforts (Hayton et al, 2002).
33