An Overview Of Employee Suggestion Schemes Commerce Essay

An Overview Of Employee Suggestion Schemes Commerce EssayInnovations ar becoming progressively important for organizations to remain competitive in the dynamic business environment. Employee Suggestions Systems dissolutions a key role for organizations wishing to become to a greater extent innovative. It is a useful utensil used in the organization to elicit employees fictive ideas. Over the past decades, soupcon schemes convey been studied from many perspectives. The objective of this motif is to present the bill and evolution of mite schemes, from their early beginnings to sophisticated computer based frames that argon widely popular in many countries. We start by discussing the origins of wind systems, followed by discussing how they do evolved all over the years, and understand a typical growth involved in hypnotism system. We would like to discuss the future model of tracing system that nookie sustain and contribute epochally towards the conquest of the org anizations. Through a literature review, we describe the existing research on mite schemes to understand the diminutive drivers and barriers for the mastery of the suggestion schemes. This musical theme as well cites and illustrates the hygienic-kn confess suggestion systems used by UAE organizations and their benefits. The literature, while extolling the many virtues of suggestion programs makes it clear that achieving the expected results from the programs is quite contest as it involves organizational as sound individual take aim factors and motives to tenseness on creativity and as well transformation of the creativity into groundworks. The paper provides the list of driver and barriers to suggestion schemes mainly stemming from creativity, fundament and suggestion system literatures.The suggestion making and suggestion implementation atomic number 18 two crucial stages and some(prenominal) are equally important for the success of the scheme and are influenced by a number of factors. Organizations must therefore identify these critical factors to nurture twain these stages. The schemes can be app harpd in any field to elicit employee creative ideas but must rescue a formal mechanism to work on this. Managers drive to be aware critical success factors that are essential for the success of the schemes. It is clear that suggestion schemes forget not yield results without the active mesh of everyone in the organization, and the required resources and support from top management. The future of suggestion scheme is bright as a tool for rendering innovation. Organizations need to recognize and label their schemes to yield its potential benefits. There need to be sustainability in suggestion schemes. Organizations need to assess their schemes to recognize if right conditions exist for their schemes to flourish.This paper should be of entertain to practitioners of suggestion schemes and to academics who are interested in knowing how this p rogram has evolved, and where it is today and what future it holds. Although much research has been conducted on identifying these critical success factors to the authors knowledge, little focus has been directed towards sustenance of the suggestion system. This paper makes the division for identifying the research gap in the suggestion schemes and has assimilated the existing knowledge on suggestion systems to provide a quick run through to the field and has extended the search for drivers and barriers to suggestion scheme from creativity and innovation literature.Key Words Employee, Suggestion System, Creativity, Innovation, Employee Involvement, Ideas Management inletAn Employee Suggestion Scheme (ESS) is described as a formalized mechanism that encourages employees to contribute constructive ideas for change the organization in which they work (Milner et al., 1995). Another compute definition explains suggestion schemes elicit suggestions from employees, classify them, and d ispatch them to experts for evaluation (Cooley et al., 2001). After this, the suggestion might be adopted, in which case the suggestion maker will be rewarded. But even if a suggestion is rejected, the suggestion maker may still be rewarded with a token gift. So the managers or employ committees evaluate the suggestions and implement the one that works (Chaneski, 2006). The reward may range from a certificate to a reward commensurate with the savings generated by the suggestion. Researchers in this area explain that the suggestion scheme is a mechanism or a tool that raises creativity, elicits untapped reservoirs of ideas and fuels both(prenominal) product or handle innovations, triggers a work place improvement, improves process effectiveness, saves money or helps generate new revenue and make ups organizational commitment and aimability among employees (Carrier,1998 Buech et al., 2010 Fairbank and William,2001 96. Townsend,2009Islam, 2007Arthur et al., 2010 Lloyd,1996). Thus they are structured to move over many goals and purposes (Kanna et al., 2005).There are others who view suggestion systems as mechanism to improve quality as well (Islam, 2007 Kanna et al., 2005). It is a known fact that no one would know the job, its specific processes( Darragh -Jeromos, 2005) better than the employees themselves as they are on the shop floor and are experiencing the advantages of what they are doing(Du plessis et al., 2008). Therefore, the suggestion scheme can be an advantageous way to gather suggestions in the work place by fostering this concept and taping into all employee creativity (Darragh-Jeromo, 2005).Over the past decades, suggestion schemes confuse been studied from many perspectives. In this paper, our objective is to present the history and evolution of suggestion schemes, from their early beginnings to sophisticated computer based systems that are widely popular in many countries. We start by discussing the origins of the suggestion system, follow ed by how it has evolved over the years, and understand a typical process involved in the suggestion system. Through a literature review, we describe the existing research on suggestion schemes in order to understand the critical drivers and barriers for the success of suggestion schemes. This paper also identifies future research opportunities in this field.The History and Evolution of the Suggestion SchemesIn 1721, Yoshimune Tokugawa, the 8th Shogun, placed a box called Meyasubako at the entrance of the capital of Japan Castle for written suggestions from his subjects (Arif et al., 2010). Although this is the most basic system known, an industrialized suggestion systems origin traces back to the 19th century. In 1880, William Denny, a Scottish shipbuilder asked his employees to prolong suggestions in order to build ships in better ways (Islam 2007). Following this, the Kodak company became pioneer in this endeavor with its program universe introduced in 1896 (Carrier, 1998). ma nufacturing associations, such as the Employee Involvement Association (EIA), then came into existence and they have contributed greatly to the increased formalization, objectivity, and professionalism of suggestion programs (Townsend,2009). Formerly, the National Association of Suggestion Systems, the EIA has instituted educational, statistical, and professional outgrowth programs to raise the bar of best practices in the encouragement, evaluation, development, and implementation of ideas that add value to their organizations. The IdeasUK, UKs foremost association for the promotion of employee involvement programmes was founded in 1987, its prime purpose being to assist organizations in both the public and private sector, an organization with more than 100 members worldwide. On the other hand in Japan the program was well known as the Kaizan Program. While Kaizen-oriented suggestion systems are primarily interested in generating many small improvements, western suggestion systems encourage the pursuit of innovation (Ohly et al., 2006). Simultaneously, suggestion schemes also became popular in many countries and they have a consider qualified history that includes USA, Europe, Asia and the Middle East (Cooley et al., 2001).The well-known suggestion schemes have been in existence for over 60 years and companies like Japans Toyotas and Indias Tata Steel Mill represent a usage of these historic systems. Around the 1990s suggestion schemes became progressively popular. In 1994, one employee suggestion alone saved British Gas 4.4 million. The research around 1996 reported that the world class suggestion systems are especial(a) 40 ideas per person annually, with greater than 80 percent implementation rates and high levels of participation (Savageau, 1996). The ETA 2004 annual suggestion program provided statistics from 41 of its member organizations in the United States. From this limited sample, a total of more than $811 million in savings and other benefits were realized as a result of employee suggestion programs (Townsend,2009). The latest 2009 Annual Survey of IdeasUK highlighted the following benefits amongst their membership organizations such as Boots, HSBC, Ministry of Defence and Dubai Aluminum.Cost savings of over 100m with the average implemented idea worth 1,400.00. military issue on Investment of at least 51.Employee involvement increased with average participation rates of 28%The trend of cost savings callable to employee suggestions continues till today.The Existing Research on Suggestion SystemsAn illustration of a formal process involved in the suggestion schemesSuggestions systems have come a long way (Arif et al., 2010) transiting from anonymous postboxes (Crail, 2006) or suggestion box to a sophisticated computer based electronic suggestion system (Fairbank and William 2001 Ahmed, 2009). The suggestion system is a process of two or more stages comprising mainly the suggestion making, the evaluation and implementation o f the idea ( train and Ende, 2002 Prathur and Turrel, 2002 Lipponen et al., 2008 Bakker et al., 2006 Marx, 1995Griffiths et al., 2006). There has been a negligence of research on the initial ideas generation phase that precedes the innovation, mainly because one major group of researchers who consider organizational creativity is fostered through the personal characteristics and motivations of creative individuals turned its assistance to mount and organizational factors(Carrier,1998). However the common process involved in the suggestion management system is depicted in fig 1verbal description http//www.apo-tokyo.org/productivity/pmtt_004b.jpgIn recent times the suggestion schemes have also been known as Idea Capture Systems or Idea Management Systems. ransack (2006) claims that the Idea capture system can fall into four categoriesCentralized suggestion schemes,De-centralized suggestion schemes,Work based systemsInformal systems.Literature shows that the subject of suggestion sc hemes is multidisciplinary. Broadly the theoretical base for suggestion schemes emerges from the literature on creativity and innovation. This is mainly because the researchers describe suggestion systems as tools that shake up creativity or innovation (Carrier,1998). Innovation begins with creative ideas (Amabile et al., 1996) and thus creativity and innovation are interlinked and the process in the suggestion system is mainly pore on eliciting the employees creative ideas and implementing them to fuel innovations. The main focus of the research then goes to the factors that trigger creativity and innovation. Researchers have examined these factors from three points of views (Buech et al.,2010) The first considers work environment. A second stream of research, focusing on the features of suggestion systems, weighs the influence of feedback about suggestions, management support of the system and rewards for successful suggestions, the third deals with the characteristics of the in dividuals. The creativity and innovation literature also highlights these contextual, organizational and individual factors that foster creativity and innovation but it is also evident that the contextual factors that foster creativity and innovation would also foster the suggestion making as well (Ohly et al.,2006). The factors cited to be drivers to creativity, suggestion system and innovation are identified below.Factors fostering Suggestion Making, Creativity and InnovationA good suggestion scheme should play a vital role in improving communication and promoting and enhancing the intelligence of common purpose (McConville, 1990). People need accessible, informational, and economic support to be able to create something new (Majdar, 2005). The creativity in an organizational context emerges from a process of sharing information with other people within the organization (Bakker et al., 2006). Although the social networking alone cannot be considered as an important source of inf ormation for innovation(Bigliardi et al., 2009), the high quality social exchange relationships (Kudisch, 2006), social influences(Klijn et al., 2010),collaboration(Bjrklund,2010 Fairbank et al.,2001), and diverse group exchanges(Shalley et al.,2004) can stimulate employee creativity. Even in a field where innovation is essential, most of the acute challenges do not concern innovation s bolt downs, but rather the organizational context of innovation the work communities kitchen-gardening, habits, and practices (Bjrklund, 2010). Creativity and innovation will only be sporadic occurrences and will not thrive without a supportive environment and culture (Malaviya Wadhwa, 2005Amabile et al.,1996). Every organization has its own culture and needs and its suggestion system should be molded around that (Marx, 1995). The organization structure often hinders tacit knowledge sharing by establishing wrong authorities (Alwis et al., 2008). Several studies have shown how certain organizationa l structures facilitate the creation of new products and processes, especially in relation to abstain changing environments (Lam,2010). Organization structures have to be modified in different industries so that the organizational structure of a company or a surgical incision supports transfer and transmission of tacit knowledge in the best way (Alwis et al., 2008).Management practices of the organization play a role in the success of the suggestion programs (Carrier, 1998). Management has a responsibility to satisfy the need for employee participation and they are required to create a culture which is supportive of employee involvement in the decisions which print their work (Reychav et al., 2010). Senior management ought to demonstrate their faith in the scheme, promote and support it and encourage all managers to view it as a positive labour for continuous improvement (McConville, 1990). Management must get actively involved by creating the opportunities for employees to submi t their ideas, get those ideas properly evaluated, give recognition when it is due and implement them as soon as possible (Du plessis, 2008). Converting managers, particularly those in the middle is crucial (McConville,1990). Undoubtly, people will produce creative work when they perceive for font that the management is required to encourage (Amabile et al., 1996). Therefore a visible commitment from top management can encourage employee active participation in the scheme.Studies have shown that a traditional, autocratic management style results in low levels of employee engagement and motivation (Hayward, 2010). Empowering leadership has the capacity to positively influence employee psychological empowerment -an fraction of importance in affecting creative outcome (Zhang, 2010). On the other hand leadership styles that include threats, intimidation, and coercive tactics appear to universally dissuade creative behavior on the part of employees (Anderson et al., 2008). The coworke r support (Madjar,2008Majdar 2005Shalley et al.,2004Arif et al., 2010) is another important element that can trigger employees to make suggestions. rag week (1975) notes, the best way to kill a system are to let an idea remain in limbo for four, five or six months. The goal should be to completely process a suggestion in about 30 days and in no more than 60 days. To handle employee creativity effectively, it is important to organize the process of idea extraction to idea follow-up properly, otherwise employees will not be motivated to put their ideas forward and many ideas will be befogged (Van Ende, 2002). The knowledge possessed by individual employees can only lead to a firm competitive advantage if employees have the motivation and opportunity to manage and utilize their individual knowledge in ways that benefit the organization (Arthur et al., 2005). Therefore the development of an infrastructure (Marx 1995) with simple methods (Hultgren, 2008) for submitting suggestions ( McConville, 1990) is a key aspect of the suggestion scheme. The companies lack of action on suggestions provided by non-managerial employees can de-motivate employees from participating in employee relation programs (Cho and Erdum 2006). Fairbank (2003) argues the formal Employee suggestion Management systems(ESMS)s are superior to the stereotypical suggestion box because they make it easier for employees to submit ideas that will eventually be implemented, provide a transparent process for evaluating the suggestions, and generate timely feedback regarding the fate of the suggestions and any rewards they earn. such(prenominal) a system can help to monitor the progress of the scheme on a regular basis (Hultgren, 2008). The more comfortable employees are with the format, the more suggestions will be trustworthy, and the more money will be saved (Mishra, 1994).Good ideas can come from anyone, at any level, any place, anytime (McConville, 1990 Majdar ,2005). Therefore a suggestion sche me should make all its employees at all levels eligible to participate (McConville, 1990 Lloyd, 1996). The involvement can be increased if employees develop a sense of belonging to the organization (Cruz et al., 2009). Empowerment is necessary so that the workers evaluate their own ideas before making a suggestion, as suggesting many ideas do not needfully mean greater cost reduction and at the same time, it would be an added cost to process and may cause supports (Wynder, 2008). The biggest obstacles in the suggestion cycle lie in the area of review, evaluation and guidance. Insensitive comments of proposal reviewers can sometime kill an employees improvement initiative (Neagoe et al., 2009). When the review, evaluation and guidance aspect of the system functions properly, it can be a great motivating force that will attract many excellent proposals (Neagoe et al., 2009). If ideas are do public, these ideas, good and bad, could have started other creative ideas elsewhere in the o rganization (Stenmark, 2000). A modern well-managed suggestion scheme lies not in the immediate financial returns, but in the contribution made to achieving greater involvement and team- work (McConville,1990). Creative ideas are more often the product of social interaction and influence than of periods of thinking in isolation (Majdar, 2005) The silver rewards and recognition alone will not make a suggestion system successful (Strane,2000). Employee morale should be boosted by creating success stories and measuring the success of the scheme through the implementation of ideas (Marx, 1995 Hultgren, 2008 Lloyd, 1996 Cho Erdem 2006).A suggestion system is clearly a money saver in an organization (Mishra, 1994). There needs to be various strategies in place to avoid employee boredom and to consider the life cycle of the system, employees must be rewarded not only with tangible but also intangible benefits (Ahmed 2009). Incentives are important for employees to feel that submission of their useable ideas will be rewarded (Du plessis et al., 2008). It was also found that the volume of employee suggestions over time will be positively related to the amount of payout (Arthur et al., 2010). Depending on the attention given to advertising the schemes and how participation is rewarded, organizations could improve the return on the idea capture system (Leach et al., 2006).Individuals have the greatest possible number of characteristics that positively influence their creative performance (Muoz-Doyague, 2008). Keeping workers intrinsically motivated is the key part for improving creativity and performance. No doubt, intrinsic motivation is a universally important and substantial factor (Suh et al.,2008). Sending individuals to state-of- the-art seminars, training programs, and conferences as a reward for their creativity might increase the positive impact (Griffiths-hemans et al., 2006). This will be the energy of renewal and the drive to a successful future.The Barrier s to suggestion systemsResearch also reports on barriers that could hinder the success of the suggestion scheme. They are mainly cited as work load pressure, task reutilization, task standardization, unsupportive climate, aversive leadership, co-worker mistrust, coworker incompetence, budget problems, impractical idea, technical issues, competition, delay in assessment, controlled supervision, lack of support, fear of evaluation, free riding, lack of self confidence, low commitment to organization and system, rigid rules,self-interest, challenge of the work and resistance from middle managers(Alwis Hartmann 2008Amabile et al.,1996Anderson Veillette 2008Bakker et al., 2006Carreir 1998 Oldham and e. e. cummings 1996Lyold 1999Mclean 2005McConville 1990Toubia,2006Sadi,2008Wong PangFinally, the existing research also evidences that although the interest and practice in Continuous Improvement (CI) are widespread in many organizations, many of them have major problems in sustaining succ ess in their CI programs (Rapp and Eklund, 2007),). Many organizations are faced with problems associated with both the implementation and sustainability of their CI programs. There is no study which gives account of the design features for frequency of feedback or extent to publicity (Leach,2006).Despite the increasing popularity of the gain sharing plans, evidence for their effectiveness has remained mixed(Arthur et al., 2010). Suggestion systems should not exist primarily as a means to recognize employees only (Darragh Jeromos 2005) but to utilize the scheme to its fullest extent. So a well designed system will accomplish both these goals resulting in tangible as well as intangible benefits (Ahmed, 2009). Overall suggestion system is a great mechanism that involves individual and teams in improving the organization performance (Crail, 2006) and they have a strong and significant effect on both process and product innovation (Townsend, 2009). It perfectly matches todays market ne ed to deal with knowledge based workers who expect their involvement to be recognized and utilization of their skills to its fullest (Kesting et al., 2010).IndicatorsSource1Supervisory encouragementMclean 2005Marx 1995Shalley Gilson 2004Tatter 1975Frese et al 1999Lloyd 1996Ohly et al 2006Arif et al 2010Hardin 19642Co worker supportMadjar 2008Majdar 2005Shalley Gilson 2004Arif et al 20103Top Mgt SupportHuang Farh 2009.Amabile et al 2004Carreir 1998Egan 2005Jong Hartog 2007Marx 1995McConville 1990Du plessis 2008Ahmed 2009Mishara 1994Powell 2008Prather TurrellRice 2009Zhang 2010KhairuzzamanBell 1997 Unsworth 2005Hayward 2010.4organizational riseFairbank and Williams 2001Alves et al 2007Ahmed 1998Alwis Hartmann 2008 Amabile et al 1996Arthur Kim 2005Bjrklund 2010Darragh-Jeromos 2005Ellonen et al., 2008Griffiths-hemans Grover 2006Janssen, O., 2004Klijn Tomic 2010Kudisch 2006Neagoe Klein 2009Mclean 2005Malaviya, P., 2005McConville 1990Powell 2008Prather Turrell Recht Wildero , 1998Shalley Gilson 2004Al-Alawi et al 2007Rietzschel 2008Zhou George(2001)Stranne 1964Van Ende 2002Bell 1997 KhairuzzamanBigliardi Dormio 20095CommunicationAlves et al 2007Aoki 2008Arthur et al 2010.Binnewies et al 2007Bjrklund 2010.Klijn Tomic 2010Kudisch 2006Madjar 2008Majdar 2005Madjar 2008Majdar 2005McConville 1990Ahmed 2009 Recht Wildero ,1998Shalley Gilson 2004Tatter 1975KhairuzzamanMonge Al-Alawi et al 2007Clark 2009Fairbank and Williams 2001Stranne 19646 evaluationEgan 2005 Rietzschel 2008Neagoe Klein 2009Marx 1995McConville 1990Ahmed 2009Powell 2008Tatter 1975Van Ende 2002Hultgren 2008Lloyd 1996Winter 2009Sarri et al ,2010Fairbank and Williams 2001.7PublicityReuter 1976Mishara 1994Tatter 1975Fairbank and Williams 2001.Kudisch 2006Neagoe Klein 2009Leach et al 2006Marx 1995McConville 1990Prather TurrellLloyd 1996Winter 2009Crail 20078ResourcesAlves et al 2007Amabile et al 1996Griffiths-hemans Grover 2006Klijn Tomic 2010Mclean 2005McConville 1990Shalley Gilson 200 4Van Ende 2002Lloyd 1996Bigliardi Dormio 2009Clark 20099RewardsLloyd 1996 Klijn Tomic 2010Arthur Kim 2005Arthur et al 2010. Bartol Srivastava 2002Darragh-Jeromos 2005Neagoe Klein 2009Leach et al 2006Lloyd.1999Marx 1995McConville 1990Du plessis 2008Ahmed 2009Mishara 1994Rapp and Eklund 2007Rice 2009Shalley Gilson 2004Tatter 1975Teglborg-Lefevre, a.C., 2010Van Ende 2002Arif et al 2010Bell 1997 Frese et al 1999Winter 2009Al-Alawi et al 2007Baird Wang 2010Bartol Srivastava 2002Clark 2009Crail 2007Rietzschel(2008)Suh Shin 2008. Lyold 199910TrainingPaulus 2008Tatter 1975Baird Wang 2010Stranne 1964Birdi 200511Effective simple SystemReuter 1976Lloyd 1996 Arthur Kim 2005Lloyd 1999Marx 1995McConville 1990Fairbank 2003Mishara 1994Prather TurrellRapp and Eklund 2007Tatter1975Van Ende 2002Arif et al 2010Frese et al 1999Hultgren 2008 Winter 2009Bigliardi Dormio 2009Clark 2009Fairbank and Williams 2001Lyold 1999Bassadur 1992Hultgren 200812feedbackCho Erdem 2006 Bakker et al 2006 Buec h et al 2010Leach et al 2006Mishara 1994Powell 2008Rapp and Eklund 2007Arif et al 2010Hultgren 2008Fairbank and Williams 2001. Stranne 1964Bassadur 1992Van Ende 2002Du plessis 200813Implementation of suggestionMarx 1995McConville 1990Hultgren 2008Lloyd 1996Cho Erdem 200614Job factorsAmabile et al 1996Anderson Veillette 2008. Bjrklund 2010.Buech et al 2010Griffiths-hemans Grover 2006Hirst 2009Powell 2008Rego et al 2009Shalley Gilson 2004Shalley Gilson 2004Frese et al 1999Axtell et al 2000Muoz-Doyague et al( 2008)Unsworth 2005Cruz et al 2009de Jong den Hartog 2010.15EmpowermentRecht Wildero ,1998Lipponen et al 2008Mclean 2005Powell 2008Axtell et al 2000de Jong den Hartog 2010 Unsworth 200516ExpertiseBantel Jackson 1989Bjrklund 2010Griffiths-hemans Grover 2006Klijn Tomic 2010Madjar 2008Majdar 2005Verworn 2009Bigliardi Dormio 200917Individual attributes and self efficacyHuang Farh 2009.Egan 2005Lipponen et al 2008Verworn 2009Frese et al 1999Axtell et al 2000Aoki 2008. Lippo nen et al 2008Binnewies et al 2007Bjrklund 2010. Griffiths-hemans Grover 2006 Klijn Tomic 2010 Lipponen et al 2008Litchfield 2008Malaviya, P., 2005Powell 2008 Recht Wildero ,1998Shalley Gilson 2004Verworn 2009Janssen 2004Litchfield 2008Cruz et al 2009Huang Farh 2009.Aoki 2008.Arthur et al 2010. Bjrklund 2010.Darragh-Jeromos 2005Egan 2005Muoz-Doyague 200818job controlAnderson Veillette(2008)Mclean, L.D., 2005Sadi (2008)Anderson Veillette(2008)Wong Pang (2003)Neagoe, L.N. Klein, V.M., 2009McConville(1990)19Organizational impedimentsStenmark(2000)Alwis Hartmann(2008). Anderson, T.a. Veillette, a., 2008Wong Pang (2003)Toubia 2005Bakker, H., Boersma, K. Oreel, S., 2006)Amabile et al (1996)Lyold (1999)Fairbank, J.F., Spangler, W.E. Williams, S.D., 2003.Du Plessis, AJ, Marx, AE Wilson, G 2008 Fairbank, J.F., Spangler, W.E. Williams, S.D., 2003. Carrier C., 1998Fairbank, J.F., Spangler, W.E. Williams, S.D., 2003Du Plessis, AJ, Marx, AE Wilson, G 2008.BaMcConville(1990)Mostaf El-Masry( 2009)20team workRapp and Eklund 2007 Amabile et al 1996Aoki 2008Carreir 1998Darragh-Jeromos 2005Mclean 2005McConville 1990Shalley Gilson 2004Baird Wang 2010Egan 2005Pissarra Jesuino 2005Fairbank and Williams 2001.21CompetitionBakker, H., Boersma, K. Oreel, S., 2006)22Support for innovationLipponen et al 2008Hultgren 200823employee participationAlves et al 2007McConville 1990Lloyd 1996Fairbank and Williams 2001. Cruz et al 2009 Neagoe, L.N. Klein, V.M., 2009DiscussionSuggestion systems have evolved from a traditional suggestion box to sophisticated electronic systems aiming to encourage all employees to take part in suggestion schemes and to rapidly process the ideas received from the employees and put to practical use. Large organizations are focusing on achieving bigger goals at company level as well as at employee level to accrue the tangible as well as intangible benefits. However companys need to carefully implement the program as every organization has its own cu lture, it needs to tailor the program to meet their organization needs and what they expect from this system must be clearly known. While suggestion schemes have evolved over the decades, the main underlying factor driving this engine is to pursue workplace improvements, process or product innovations.Research in this field has been mainly focused on features of suggestion schemes, guidelines for implementation and critical success factors and critical barriers encompassing the organizational as well as the individual contexts. Research also evidences its contribution as to how organizations have utilized the tool to obtain small workplace improvements through to good sized innovation and if implemented they contribute in structure organizations innovation capability.The suggestion making and suggestion implementation are two crucial stages and both are equally important for the success of the scheme and are influenced by a number of factors. Organizations must therefore identify t hese critical factors to nurture both these stages. The schemes can be applied in any sector to elicit employee creative ideas but must have a formal mechanism to action this. Managers need to be aware of critical success factors that are essential for the success of the schemes. It is clear that suggestion schemes will not yield results without the active involvement of everyone in the organization, and the required resources and support from top management. The suggestion schemes are here to stay mainly because they are the vehicle for innovations. Today we live in a knowledge economy where innovation is not only significant but a key corner stone for an organizations growth and sustainability. The future of the suggestion scheme is bright as a tool for fueling innovation. Organizations need to recognize and evaluate their schemes to yield its potential benefits. There needs to be sustainabil