Sustainable and Traditional Product Innovation without Scale and Experience, but Only for KIBS!
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background Theory and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Organizational Learning Capabilities and Product Innovation
2.2. Entrepreneurial Orientation and Product Innovation
2.3. Product Innovation in Knowledge-Intensive Business Service (KIBS) Firms
3. Data, Variable Definition, and Method
3.1. Data
3.2. Convening Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS)
3.3. Variable Definition
3.3.1. Sustainable and Traditional Product Innovation
3.3.2. Organizational Learning Capability (OLC)
3.3.3. Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO)
3.3.4. Control Variables
3.4. Method: Fuzzy Set Analysis
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions, Implications, and Directions for Future Research
6.1. Concluding Remarks
6.2. Implications
6.3. Directions for Future Research
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Danneels, E. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 1095–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slater, S.F.; Mohr, J.J.; Sengupta, S. Radical product innovation capability: Literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 552–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alegre, J.; Chiva, R. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: An empirical test. Technovation 2008, 28, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Medeiros, J.F.; Ribeiro, J.L.D.; Cortimiglia, M.N. Success factors for environmentally sustainable product innovation: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dangelico, R.M.; Pujari, D. Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 471–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, T.; Feng, T.; Ye, C. Advanced Manufacturing Technologies and Green Innovation: The Role of Internal Environmental Collaboration. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arthur, D. Little (ADL) Group. Innovation High Ground Report: How Leading Companies Are Using Sustainability-Driven Innovation to Win Tomorrow’s Customers? Available online: http://www.adlittle.com/sustainability-viewpoints0.html?&view=13 (accessed on 30 October 2017).
- Nidumolu, R.; Prahalad, C.K.; Rangaswami, M.R. Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation. Harvard Bus. Rev. 2009, 87, 56–64. [Google Scholar]
- McKinsey & Company. Sustainability’s Deepening Imprint. December 2017. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/sustainabilitys-deepening-imprint (accessed on 5 April 2018).
- Schumpeter, J.A. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1934. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, W.; Klepper, S. Firm Size and the Nature of Innovation within Industries: The Case of Process and Product R&D. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1996, 78, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiklund, J.; Shepherd, D. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. J. Bus. Ventur. 2005, 20, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alegre, J.; Lapiedra, R.; Sengupta, K. Knowledge Management and Innovation Performance in the Context of Global High-Tech Firms. Int. Small Bus. J. 2013, 31, 454–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhardt, K.M.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 1105–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bustinza, O.F.; Gomes, E.; Vendrell-Herrero, F.; Baines, T. Product–service innovation and performance: The role of collaborative partnerships and R&D intensity. R&D Manag. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cusumano, M.A.; Kahl, S.J.; Suarez, F.F. Services, industry evolution, and the competitive strategies of product firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 2015, 36, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lafuente, E.; Vaillant, Y.; Vendrell-Herrero, F. Territorial servitization: Exploring the virtuous circle connecting knowledge-intensive services and new manufacturing businesses. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 192, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zieba, M.; Zieba, K. Knowledge Management Critical Success Factors and the Innovativeness of KIBS Companies. Eng. Econ. 2014, 25, 358–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castaldi, C.; Faber, J.; Kishna, M.J. Co-innovation by KIBS in environmental services—A knowledge-based perspective. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2013, 17, 1350020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parida, V.; Sjödin, D.R.; Wincent, J.; Kohtamäki, M. Mastering the transition to product-service provision: Insights into business models, learning activities, and capabilities. Res. Technol. Manag. 2014, 57, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Medina, P.S.; Corbett, J.; Toledo-López, A. Environmental innovation and sustainability in small handicraft businesses in Mexico. Sustainability 2011, 3, 984–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, R.-J.; Tan, K.-H.; Geng, Y. Market demand, green product innovation, and firm performance: Evidence from Vietnam motorcycle industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 40, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Enhancing the Contributions of SMEs in a Global and Digitalised Economy. In Proceedings of the Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level, Paris, France, 7–8 June 2017; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. OECD Economic Surveys: Costa Rica 2016—Economic Assessment; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Economic Forum. The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. OECD Establishes Roadmap for Membership with Costa Rica. OECD Newsroom, 15 July 2015. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/oecd-establishes-roadmap-for-membership-with-costa-rica.htm (accessed on 5 April 2018).
- OECD. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Costa Rica 2017; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, P.K. Responsible retailing: The practice of CSR in banana plantations in Costa Rica. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 91, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutt, R. Costa Rica wants to be the first country to ban all single-use plastics. Formative Content, World Economic Forum, 30 August 2017. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/costa-rica-plastic-ban-2021/ (accessed on 5 April 2018).
- Dibella, A.J.; Nevis, E.C.; Gould, J.M. Understanding organizational learning capability. J. Manag. Stud. 1996, 33, 361–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hult, G.; Ferrell, O. Global organizational learning capability in purchasing: Construct and measurement. J. Bus. Res. 1997, 40, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiva, R.; Alegre, J.; Lapiedra, R. Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce. Int. J. Manpower 2007, 28, 224–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Mesa, A.; Alegre, J. Entrepreneurial orientation and export intensity: Examining the interplay of organizational learning and innovation. Int. Bus. Rev. 2015, 24, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hult, G.; Tomas, M.; Hurley, R.; Knight, G. Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Ind. Market. Manag. 2004, 33, 429–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calantone, R.J.; Cavusgil, T.; Zhao, Y. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Ind. Market. Manag. 2002, 31, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Alegre, J.; Chiva, R. Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of organizational learning capability and innovation performance. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2013, 51, 491–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez-Jiménez, D.; Sanz-Valle, R. Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tohidi, H.; Mandegari, M. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on firm innovation. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 6, 4522–4535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamasak, R.; Yavuz, M.; Altuntas, G. Is the relationship between innovation performance and knowledge management contingent on environmental dynamism and learning capability? Evidence from a turbulent market. Bus. Res. 2016, 9, 229–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mintzberg, H. Strategy-making in three modes. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1973, 16, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manag. Sci. 1983, 29, 770–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Covin, J.G.; Slevin, D.P. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1991, 16, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lumpkin, G.T.; Cogliser, C.C.; Schneider, D.R. Understanding and measuring autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Covin, J.G.; Wales, W.J. The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2012, 36, 677–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wales, W.J.; Gupta, V.K.; Mousa, F. Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Int. Small Bus. J. 2013, 31, 357–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauch, A.; Wiklund, J.; Lumpkin, G.T.; Frese, M. Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 761–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lumpkin, G.T.; Dess, G.G. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, S.A.; Nielsen, A.P.; Bogner, W.C. Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge and competence development. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1999, 23, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ireland, R.D.; Hitt, M.A.; Sirmon, D.G. A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 963–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walter, A.; Auer, M.; Ritter, T. The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21, 541–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lafuente, E.; Vaillant, Y.; Serarols, C. Location decisions of knowledge-based entrepreneurs: Why some Catalan KISAs choose to be rural? Technovation 2010, 30, 590–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaillant, Y.; Lafuente, E.; Serarols, C. Location decisions of new ‘Knowledge Intensive Service Activity’ firms: The rural–urban divide. Serv. Ind. J. 2012, 32, 2543–2563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, I.; Kim, J.K.; Park, H.; Cho, N. The relationship between organisational culture and service quality through organisational learning framework. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. 2013, 24, 753–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skjølsvik, T.; Løwendahl, B.R.; Kvålshaugen, R.; Fosstenløkken, S.M. Choosing to Learn and Learning to Choose: Strategies for client co-production and knowledge development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2007, 49, 110–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vendrell-Herrero, F.; Bustinza, O.F.; Parry, G.; Georgantzis, N. Servitization, digitization and supply chain interdependency. Ind. Market. Manag. 2017, 60, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acs, Z.; Mueller, P. Employment effects of business dynamics: Mice, gazelles and elephants. Small Bus. Econ. 2008, 30, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henrekson, M.; Johansson, D. Gazelles as job creators: A survey and interpretation of the evidence. Small Bus. Econ. 2010, 35, 227–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colton, D.; Covert, R. Designing and Constructing Instruments for Social Research and Evaluation; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Market. Res. 1977, 14, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opresnik, D.; Taisch, M. The value of big data in servitization. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 165, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Knowledge-Intensive (Business) Services in Europe; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Data. Oslo Manual; OECD: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: NewYork, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Engelen, A.; Kube, H.; Schmidt, S.; Flatten, T. Entrepreneurial orientation in turbulent environments: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1353–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeed, S.; Yousafzai, S.Y.; Engelen, A. On cultural and macroeconomic contingencies of the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 38, 255–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rönnberg Sjödin, D.; Parida, V.; Kohtamäki, M. Capability configurations for advanced service offerings in manufacturing firms: Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5330–5335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Böhm, E.; Eggert, A.; Thiesbrummel, C. Service transition: A viable option for manufacturing companies with deteriorating financial performance? Ind. Market. Manag. 2017, 60, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ragin, C.C. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008; Volume 240. [Google Scholar]
- Fiss, P.C. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiss, P.C. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 1180–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ragin, C.C.; Fiss, P.C. Net effects analysis versus configurational analysis: An empirical demonstration. In Redesigning Social Inquiry: Set Relations in Social Research; Ragin, C.C., Ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008; pp. 190–212. [Google Scholar]
- Labianca, G.; Fairbank, J.F.; Andrevski, G.; Parzen, M. Striving toward the future: Aspiration–performance discrepancies and planned organizational change. Strateg. Organ. 2009, 7, 433–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lafuente, E.; Berbegal-Mirabent, J. Assessing the productivity of technology transfer offices: An analysis of the relevance of aspiration performance and portfolio complexity. J. Technol. Transf. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, K.-H. R&D Productivity and Firm Size: A Nonlinear Examination. Technovation 2005, 25, 795–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artz, K.W.; Norman, P.M.; Hatfield, D.E.; Cardinal, L.B.A. Longitudinal Study of the Impact of R&D, Patents, and Product Innovation on Firm Performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 725–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graves, S.B.; Langowitz, N.S. Innovative Productivity and Returns to Scale in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 593–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acs, Z.; Audretsch, D.B. Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis. Am. Econ. Rev. 1988, 78, 678–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acs, Z.; Gifford, S. Innovation of Entrepreneurial Firms. Small Bus. Econ. 1996, 8, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markides, C.C.; Williamson, P.J. Related diversification, core competences and corporate performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 1994, 15, 19–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Mean | Std. Dev. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Sustainable product innovation | 4.72 | 1.55 | 1.00 | |||||
2 | Traditional product innovation | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.71 | 1.00 | ||||
3 | Organization learning capability | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.46 | 1.00 | |||
4 | Entrepreneurial orientation | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.54 | 0.45 | 0.85 | 1.00 | ||
5 | Knowledge intensive business service (KIBS) firm | 0.34 | 0.48 | 0.32 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 1.00 | |
6 | Business size (employees) | 80.79 | 263.01 | −0.04 | −0.04 | −0.19 | −0.10 | −0.13 | 1.00 |
7 | Business age (years) | 16.36 | 15.27 | −0.09 | −0.18 | 0.02 | −0.03 | −0.26 | −0.12 |
Sustainable Product Innovation | Traditional Product Innovation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (1) | (2) | |
Organization learning capability | | | | |
Entrepreneurial orientation | | | | |
Knowledge intensive business service (KIBS) firms | | | | |
Business size (ln employees) | | | | |
Business age (ln years) | | | | |
Goodness of fit statistics | ||||
Consistency | 0.954 | 0.941 | 0.941 | 0.942 |
Raw consistency | 0.246 | 0.388 | 0.248 | 0.268 |
Unique coverage | 0.173 | 0.275 | 0.248 | 0.263 |
Overall solution consistency | 0.949 | 0.941 | ||
Overall solution coverage | 0.522 | 0.516 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lafuente, E.; Vaillant, Y.; Leiva, J.C. Sustainable and Traditional Product Innovation without Scale and Experience, but Only for KIBS! Sustainability 2018, 10, 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041169
Lafuente E, Vaillant Y, Leiva JC. Sustainable and Traditional Product Innovation without Scale and Experience, but Only for KIBS! Sustainability. 2018; 10(4):1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041169
Chicago/Turabian StyleLafuente, Esteban, Yancy Vaillant, and Juan Carlos Leiva. 2018. "Sustainable and Traditional Product Innovation without Scale and Experience, but Only for KIBS!" Sustainability 10, no. 4: 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041169