Emergence of Product and Service Innovations of Different Level of Novelty in Knowledge Intensive SMEs: The Role of Open Innovation Patterns
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the contribution is to evaluate the importance of domestic and foreign collaborative ties between knowledge-intensive SMEs and knowledge sources for the creation of product and service innovations which we differentiate according to the spatial level of novelty.
Methodology/Approach: In order to test the validity of the hypotheses which were justified in the context of previous research we adopt an econometric approach and specifically, due to the nature of the dependent variable, the logistic regression.
Findings: The results support the hypotheses that the determinants of innovation in SMEs vary in case of innovations with different level of novelty. Open innovation practices are crucial rather for SMEs delivering innovations of products and services novel on national and international markets.
Research Limitation/Implication: The research does not reflect the frequency of innovative products and services at the enterprise level as well as the impact of new products and services on turnover.
Originality/Value of paper: In particular, the study brings new insights into the determinants of product innovation of a lower degree of novelty applied in local and regional markets which can be an important source of development for low-density economies.
References
Al Ansari, M.S., 2013. Open and Closed R&D Processes: Internal Versus External Knowledge. European Journal of Sustainable Development, [e-journal] 2(1), pp.1-18. DOI: 10.14207/ejsd.2013.v2n1p1.
Berchicci, L., 2013. Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, [e-journal] 42(1), pp.117-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.017.
Bjerke, L. and Johansson, S., 2015. Patterns of innovation and collaboration in small and large firms. The Annals of Regional Science, [e-journal] 55, pp.221-247. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-015-0712-y.
Bogers, M., Zobel, A-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., Hagedoorn, J., Hilgers, D., Laursen, K., Magnusson, M.G., Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I.P., Moeslein, K.M., Nambisan, S., Piller, F.T, Radziwon, A., Rossi-Lamastra, C., Sims, J. and Ter Wal, A.L.J., 2017. The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, [e-journal] 24(1), pp.8-40. DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068.
Cassiman, B. and Valentini, G., 2016. Open innovation: Are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really complementary? Strategic Management Journal, [e-journal] 37(6), pp.1034-1046. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2375.
Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R., 2006. In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition. Management Science, [e-journal] 52(1), pp.68-82. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0470.
Chang, Y.-C., 2003. Benefits of co-operation on innovative performance: evidence from integrated circuits and biotechnology firms in the UK and Taiwan. R and D Management, [e-journal] 33(4), pp.425-437. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9310.00308.
Chen, J., Chen, Y. and Vanhaverbeke, W., 2011. The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation, [e-journal] 31(8), pp.362-373. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2011.03.002.
Cheng, C.C.J. and Chen, J., 2013. Breakthrough innovation: the roles of dynamic innovation capabilities and open innovation activities. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, [e-journal] 28(5), pp.444-454. DOI: 10.1108/08858621311330281.
Cheng, C.C.J. and Huizingh, E.K.R.E., 2014. When Is Open Innovation Beneficial? The Role of Strategic Orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, [e-journal] 31(6), pp.1235-1253. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12148.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A., 1989. Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R & D. The Economic Journal, [e-journal] 99(397), pp.569-96. DOI: 10.2307/2233763.
Diebolt, C. and Hippe, R., 2018. The long-run impact of human capital on innovation and economic development in the regions of Europe. Applied Economics, [e-journal] 51(5), pp.542-563. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2018.1495820.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and Salter, A., 2006. The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R and D Management, [e-journal] 36(3), pp.333-346. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00429.x.
Dziurski, P. and Sopińska, A., 2020. Does industry matter? Drivers and barriers for open innovation in high-tech and non-high-tech industries—Evidence from Poland. International Journal of Management and Economics, [e-journal] 56(4), pp.307-323. DOI: 10.2478/ijme-2020-0024.
Ebersberger, B., Galia, F., Laursen, K. and Salter, A., 2021. Inbound Open Innovation and Innovation Performance: A Robustness Study. Research Policy, [e-journal] 50(7), 104271. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104271.
Eurostat, 2013. Eurostat Indicators on High‐Tech Industry and Knowledge—Intensive Services. [pdf] Eurostat. Available at: < https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/Annexes/htec_esms_an3.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3EQysh2nr1SkA7LDAs9s5HBRQYNbdRC1hflYjYojTjXn1E5j8vtCO3t5s > [Accessed 12 August 2022].
Gómez, J., Salazar, I. and Vargas, P., 2020. The Role Of Extramural R&D And Scientific Knowledge In Creating High Novelty Innovations: An Examination Of Manufacturing And Service Firms In Spain. Research Policy, [e-journal] 49(8), 104030. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104030.
Grimpe, C. and Kaiser, U., 2010. Balancing Internal and External Knowledge Acquisition: The Gains and Pains from R&D Outsourcing. Journal of Management Studies, [e-journal] 47(8), pp.1483-1509. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00946.x.
Haans, R.F.J., Pieters, C. and He, Z.-L., 2015. Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, [e-journal] 37(7), pp.1177-1195. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2399.
Hansen, M.T. and Birkinshaw, J., 2007. The Innovation Value Chain. Harvard Business Review, [online] June. Available at: < https://hbr.org/2007/06/the-innovation-value-chain > [Accessed 25 August 2022].
Hrivnák, M., Roháčiková, O. and Schwarcz, P., 2020. What Drives the Private Innovation in Rural Areas? In-Depth Case Study of Slovak Rural Region. Administrative Sciences, [e-journal] 10(3), pp.1-17. DOI: 10.3390/admsci10030040.
Hsieh, W.-L., Ganotakis, P., Kafouros, M. and Wang, C., 2017. Foreign and Domestic Collaboration, Product Innovation Novelty, and Firm Growth. Journal of Product Innovation Management, [e-journal] 35(4), pp.652-672. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12435.
Hung, K.-P. and Chou, C., 2013. The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation, [e-journal] 33(10-11), pp.368-380. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2013.06.006.
Katz, M.L., 1986. An analysis of cooperative research and development. RAND Journal of Economics, 17(4), pp.527-543.
Kim, H. and Park, Y., 2010. The effects of open innovation activity on performance of SMEs: the case of Korea. International Journal of Technology Management, [e-journal] 52(3/4), pp.236-256. DOI: 10.1504/ijtm.2010.035975.
Knell, M. and Srholec, M., 2005. Innovation cooperation and foreign ownership in the Czech Republic. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU-STEP).
Laursen, K. and Salter, A., 2006. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, [e-journal] 27(2), pp.131-150. DOI: 10.1002/smj.507.
Lesáková, Ľ., Gundová, P., Kráľ, P. and Ondrušová, A., 2017. Innovation Leaders, Modest Innovators and Non-innovative SMEs in Slovakia: Key Factors and Barriers of Innovation Activity. Organizacija, [e-journal] 50(4), pp. 325-338. DOI: 10.1515/orga-2017-0024.
Lichtenthaler, U., 2007. The Drivers of Technology Licensing: An Industry Comparison. California Management Review, [e-journal] 49(4), pp.67-89. DOI: 10.2307/41166406.
Lopes, A.P.V.B.V. and de Carvalho, M.M., 2018. Evolution of the open innovation paradigm: Towards a contingent conceptual model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, [e-journal] 132, pp.284-298. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.014.
Malerba, F. and Mckelvey, M., 2018. Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems. Small Business Economics, [e-journal] 50(2), pp.1-20. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-018-0060-2.
Martínez-Román, J.A. and Romero, I., 2013. About the determinants of the degree of novelty in small businesses’ product innovations. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, [e-journal] 9, pp.655-677. DOI: 10.1007/s11365-013-0269-0
Nieto, M.J. and Santamaría, L., 2007. The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation, [e-journal] 27(6-7), pp.367-377. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2006.10.001.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2007. Innovation and growth. Rationale for an innovation strategy. [pdf] The Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Available at: < https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/40908171.pdf > [Accessed 28 November 2022].
Parida, V., Westerberg, M. and Frishammar, J., 2012. Inbound Open Innovation Activities in High-Tech SMEs: The Impact on Innovation Performance. Journal of Small Business Management, [e-journal] 50(2), pp.283-309. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-627x.2012.00354.x.
Pasciaroni, C. and Barbero, A., 2021. Cooperation and novelty innovation: a study for Argentina. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, [e-journal] 12(4), pp.541-570. DOI: 10.1108/JSTPM-06-2019-0067.
Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P. and Martinez-Conesa, I., 2017. Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, [e-journal] 118, pp.134-142. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.014.
Porter, M.E., Ketels, Ch.H.M., Miller, K. and Bryden, R., 2004. Competitiveness in Rural U.S. Regions: Learning and Research Agenda. [pdf] Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness Harvard Business School. Available at: < https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/EDA_RuralReport_20040621_f544123a-49fd-4dfa-b2aa-f304b818bba3.pdf > [Accessed 06 July 2022].
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R. and Hohberger, J., 2016. A Bibliometric Review of Open Innovation: Setting a Research Agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, [e-journal] 33(6), pp.750-772. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12312.
Salge, T.O., Farchi, T., Barrett, M.I. and Dopson, S., 2013. When Does Search Openness Really Matter? A Contingency Study of Health-Care Innovation Projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, [e-journal] 30(4), pp.659-676. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12015.
Smallbone, D., Saridakis, G. and Abubakar, Y.A., 2022. Internationalisation as a stimulus for SME innovation in developing economies: Comparing SMEs in factor-driven and efficiency-driven economies. Journal of Business Research, [e-journal] 144, pp.1305-1319. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.045.
Von Hippel, E., 1988. The Sources of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weigelt, C., 2009. The impact of outsourcing new technologies on integrative capabilities and performance. Strategic Management Journal, [e-journal] 30(6), pp.595-616. DOI: 10.1002/smj.760.
West, J. and Bogers, M., 2014. Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, [e-journal] 31(4), pp.814-831. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12125.
Ženka, J., Šťastná, S. and Pavlík, A. 2021. The role of manufacturing in the development of rural regions: Evidence from a highly industrialised Moravian region. Moravian Geographical Reports, [e-journal] 29(1), pp.39-52. DOI: 10.2478/mgr-2021-0004.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2022 Michal Hrivnák
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Authors who publish with the Quality Innovation Prosperity agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
