Complementarity between different types of innovationan oasis in the middle of the desert

  1. Manuel Guisado-González 1
  2. José Luís Coca Pérez 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Extremadura
    info

    Universidad de Extremadura

    Badajoz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0174shg90

Revista:
Esic market

ISSN: 0212-1867

Ano de publicación: 2015

Número: 152

Páxinas: 9-56

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.7200/ESICM.152.0463.1 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Esic market

Resumo

Las relaciones entre los diferentes tipos de innovación han sido analizadas desde dos grandes corrientes enfrentadas. Por un lado, la visión distintiva, que asume que los determinantes de cada tipo de innovación son diferentes y que por tanto cada tipo de innovación contribuye de modo diferente al desempeño de la empresa; por otro, la visión integrativa, que considera que los diferentes tipos de innovación son interdependientes y que su implementación simultánea genera un efecto sinérgico sobre el desempeño de la empresa. Utilizando datos de España procedentes del Panel de Innovación Tecnológica (PITEC) de los años 2008, 2009, 2010 y 2011 analizamos cuál de los dos enfoques resulta predominante. Para la realización de los test de hipótesis utilizamos el denominado enfoque de complementariedad, y para la interpretación de estos test el enfoque exploración-explotación. De las seis restricciones no triviales testadas encontramos que solamente una es complementaria. Por consiguiente, estos resultados confirman el predominio de la visión distintiva, corriente mayoritaria en el ámbito de la literatura sobre innovación.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abernathy, W.J. and Utterback, J.M., 1978, “Patterns of industrial innovation”. Technology Review, Vol. 80, Issue7, pp. 40-47.
  • Ackoff, R.L., 1999, Re-creating the corporation: A design of organizations for the 21st century. New York: Oxford University press.
  • Adegbesan, J.A., 2009, “On the origins of competitive advantage: Strategic factor markets and heterogeneous resource complementarity”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34, Issue 3, pp. 463-475.
  • Ahuja, G., 2000, “Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: a longitudinal study”. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue 3, pp. 425-455.
  • Athey, S. and Stern, S., 1998, An empirical framework for testing theories about complementarity in organizational design. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Baer, M. and Frese, M., 2003, “Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, Issue1, pp. 45-68.
  • Baldwin, J., Hanel, P. and Sabourin, D., 2002, “Determinants of innovative activity in Canadian manufacturing firms”. In Kleinknecht, A. and Mohnen, P. (eds.), Innovation and Firm Performance. Palgrave, pp. 86-111.
  • Battisti, G. and Stoneman, P., 2010, “How innovative are UK firms? Evidence from the fourth UK Community Innovation Survey on synergies between technological and organizational innovations”. British Journal of Management, Vol. 21, Issue 1, pp. 187-206.
  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M. and Lokshin, B., 2004, “Cooperative R&D and firm performance”. Research Policy, Vol. 33, Issue 10, pp. 1477-1492.
  • Bernard, A.B. and Jensen, B.J., 1999, “Exceptional exporter performance: Cause, effect, or both?” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 47, Issue 1, pp. 1-25.
  • Bessler, W. and Bittelmeyer, C., 2008, “Patents and the performance of technology firms: Evidence from initial public offerings in Germany”. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp. 323-356.
  • Bhoovaraghavan, S., Vasudevan, A. and Chandran, R., 1996, “Resolving the process vs. product innovation dilemma: A consumer choice theoretic approach”. Management Science, Vol. 42, Issue 2, pp. 232-246.
  • Bloom, N. and Van Reenen, J., 2002, “Patents, Real Options and Firm Performance”. The Economic Journal. Vol. 112, Issue 478, pp. C97-C116.
  • Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R., 2006. “In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition”. Management Science, Vol. 52, Issue 1, pp. 68-82.
  • Cohen, W., 1995, “Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity”. In Stoneman, P. (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Blackwell.
  • Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A., 1990, “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation”. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, Issue 1, pp. 128-152.
  • Damanpour, F., 1991, “Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, Issue 3, pp. 555-590.
  • Damanpour, F., 2010, “An integration of research findings of effects of firm size and market competition on product and process innovations”. British Journal of Management, Vol. 21, Issue 4, pp. 996-1010.
  • Damanpour, F. and Gopalakrishnan, S., 2001, “The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations”. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38, Issue 1, pp. 45-65.
  • Damanpour, F., Szabat, K.A. and Evan, W.M., 1989, “The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance”. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26, Issue 6, pp. 587-602.
  • Damanpour, F., Walker, R.M. and Avellaneda, C.N., 2009, “Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations”. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46, Issue 4, pp. 650-675.
  • Edgerton, D., 1999, From innovation to use: Ten eclectic theses on the historiography of technology”. History and Technology, Vol. 16, Issue 2, pp. 111-136.
  • Fritsch, M. and Meschede, M., 2001, “Product innovation, process innovation, and size”. Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 19, 335-350.
  • Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K. and Alpkan, L., 2011, “Effects of innovation types on firm performance”. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133, Issue 2, pp. 662-676.
  • He, Z.L. and Wong, P.K., 2004, “Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis”. Organization Science, Vol. 15, Issue 4, pp. 481-494.
  • Hervas-Oliver J.L., Albors Garrigos J. and Gil-Pechuan I., 2011, “Making sense of innovation by R&D and non-R&D innovators in low technology contexts: A forgotten lesson for policymakers”. Technovation, Vol. 31, Issue 9, pp. 427-446.
  • Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W., 2006, “Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators”. Management Science, Vol. 52, Issue 11, pp. 1661-1674.
  • Jovanovic, B., 1982, “Selection and the Evolution of Industry”. Econometrica, Vol. 50, Issue 3, pp. 649-670.
  • Levitt, B. and March, J.G., 1988, “Organizational learning”. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14, pp. 319-340.
  • Li, H. and Atuahene-Gima, K., 2001, “Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, Issue 6, pp. 1123-1134.
  • MacGarvie, M., 2006, “Do Firms Learn from International Trade?” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 88, Issue 1, pp. 46-60.
  • March, J.G., 1991, “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”. Organization Science, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 71-87.
  • Martínez-Ros, E. and Labeaga, J., 2009, “Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities”. European Management Review, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 64-75.
  • Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J., 1990, “The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organization”. American Economic Review, Vol. 80, pp. 511-528.
  • Miravete, E. and Pernias, J., 2006, “Innovation complementarity and scale of production”. Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 54, Issue 1, pp. 1-29.
  • Mol, M.J. and Birkinshaw, J., 2009, “The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices”. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, Issue 12, pp. 1269-1280.
  • Moreira, J., Silva, M.J., Simões, J. and Sousa, G., 2012, “Drivers of marketing innovation in portuguese firms”. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, Vol. 14, Issue 31, pp. 195-206.
  • Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F., 1990, “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, Issue 4, pp. 20-34.
  • OECD, 1997, Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Paris: OECD.
  • OECD, 2005, Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD.
  • Percival, J.C. and Cozzarin, B.P., 2008, “Complementarities affecting the returns to innovation”. Industry & Innovation, Vol. 15, Issue 4, pp. 371-392.
  • Peteraf, M.A., 1993, “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 179-191.
  • Pisano, G.P. and Wheelwright, S.C., 1995, “The new logic of high-tech R&D”. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, pp. 93-105.
  • Polder, M., Van Leeuwen, G., Mohnen, P. and Raymond, W., 2010, Product, process and organizational innovation: drivers, complementarity and productivity effects. MPRA Paper 23719, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Roper, S., Du, J. and Love, J., 2008, “Modelling the innovation value chain”. Research Policy, Vol. 37, Issue 6-7, pp. 961-977.
  • Rouvinen P., 2002, “Characteristics of product and process innovators: Some evidence from the finnish innovation survey”. Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 9, Issue 9, pp. 575-580.
  • Sapprasert, K., 2010, On factors explaining organisational innovation and its effects. Working Paper No. 20080601. Retrieved from Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
  • Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A., 1997, “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, Issue 7, pp. 509-533.
  • Tiemessen, I., Lane, H.W., Crossan, M. and Inkpen, A.C., 1997, “Knowledge management in international joint ventures”. In Beamish, P.W. and Killing, J.P. (eds.), Cooperative strategies: North American perspective. New Lexington Press, pp. 370-399.
  • Topkis, D.M., 1978, “Minimizing a submodular function on a lattice”. Operations Research, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 305-321.
  • Tushman, M. and O’Reilly, C., 1997, Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Utterback, J.M., 1978, The Dynamics of product and process innovation in industry. Cambridge, MA: Center for Policy Alternatives, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Veugelers, R. and Cassiman, B., 1999, “Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms”. Research Policy, Vol. 28, Issue 1, pp. 63-80.
  • Wernerfelt, B., 1984, “A resource-based view of the firm”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 171-180.
  • Wolfe, R.A., 1994, “Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions”. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 405-431.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet