How does open innovation lead competitive advantage? A dynamic capability view perspective


Autoři: Kibaek Lee aff001;  Jaeheung Yoo aff002
Působiště autorů: Department of Research Planning, Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology (KRICT), Daejeon, Republic of Korea aff001;  Industry and Institution Research Group, Software Policy & Research Institute (SPRI), Seongnam, Republic of Korea aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223405

Souhrn

The relationship between open innovation and company’s competitive advantage, and organisational capabilities required remains to be explained. This study was conducted to answer the following questions. Does open innovation create organisation's competitive advantage? What types of capabilities are needed in the process of open innovation reaching competitive advantage, and what kind of relationship do they have? This study extends the scope of theoretical discussion about open innovation from the point of dynamic capability view. The results confirmed the statistical significance of the path linking open innovation to competitive advantage through product innovation. From the viewpoint of capabilities, transforming capability plays a role of significant prerequisite of sensing capability and seizing capability, having a direct or indirect significant effect on product innovation performance and competitive advantage sequentially. The results suggest that the linkages between the needed capabilities of organisation must be considered for performing open innovation to secure competitive advantage.

Klíčová slova:

Decision making – Employment – Finance – Industrial organization – Research validity – Software design – Structure of markets – Surveys


Zdroje

1. Chesbrough H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating And Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 2003

2. Bae Y, Chang H. Efficiency and effectiveness between open and closed innovation: empirical evidence in South Korean manufacturers. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2012; 24: 967–980.

3. Ulrich L. Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining environmental influences. R&D Management. 2009; 39(4): 317–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00561.x

4. Michael PE. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: FreePress. 1985

5. Richard M. Toward a synthesis of the resource‐based and dynamic‐capability views of rent creation. Strategic management journal. 2001; 22(5): 387–401.

6. Christensen CM. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 1997

7. Harreld JB, O'Reilly CA, Tushman ML. Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action. California Management Review. 2007;49: 21–43.

8. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management." Strategic Management Journal. 1997; 18(7): 509–533.

9. Kang KH, Kang J. Do external knowledge sourcing modes matter for service innovation? Empirical evidence from South Korean service firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2014;31(1):176–91.

10. Inoue H, Liu YY. Revealing the intricate effect of collaboration on innovation. PloS ONE. 2015;10 (3):e0121973. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121973 25799138

11. Vega-Jurado J, Gutiérrez-Gracia A, Fernández-de-Lucio I. Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2009; 18 (4): 637–670.

12. Hwang J, Lee Y. External knowledge search, innovative performance and productivity in the Korean ICT sector. Telecommunications Policy. 2010;34:562–571.

13. Tsai KH. Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective. Research Policy. 2009; 38(5): 765–78. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.012

14. Lee K, Yoo J, Choi M, Zo H, Ciganek AP. Does External Knowledge Sourcing Enhance Market Performance? Evidence from the Korean Manufacturing Industry. PloS ONE. 2016; 11 (12):e0168676. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168676 28006022

15. Hagedoorn J, Duysters G. External sources of innovative capabilities: the preferences for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies. 2002;39: 167–188.

16. Hill CWL, Rothaermel FT. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review. 2003;28: 257–274.

17. Pavlou PA, Sawy OAE. Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences. 2011; 42 (1): 239–273.

18. Teece DJ. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 2007; 28 (13): 1319–1350.

19. Cepeda G, Vera D. Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: A knowledge management perspective. Journal of Business Research. 2007;60: 426–437.

20. Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal. 2000; 21: 1105–1121. doi: 10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::aid-smj133>3.0.co;2-e

21. Becker W, Dietz J. R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms—evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy. 2004;33: 209–223. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.003

22. Gold AH, Segars AH, Malhotra A. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2001;18: 185–214.

23. Prajogo DI, Ahmed PK. Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation capacity, and innovation performance. R&D Management. 2006; 36(5): 499–515. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00450.x

24. Sáenz-Royo C, Gracia-Lázaro C, Moreno Y. The Role of the Organization Structure in the Diffusion of Innovations. PloS ONE. 2015; 10(5); e0126076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126076 25978360

25. McGahan AM. How industries evolve. Business Strategy Review. 2000; 11(3): 1–16.

26. Li DY, Liu J. Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research. 2014; 67 (1):2793–2799.

27. Wu LY. Applicability of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views under environmental volatility. Journal of Business Research. 2010; 63(1): 27–31.

28. Wu LY, Wang CJ. ansforming resources to improve performance of technology-based firms: A Taiwanese Empirical Study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 2007; 24(3): 251–261.

29. Morgan NA, Kaleka A, Katsikeas CS. Antecedents of export venture performance: A theoretical model and empirical assessment. Journal of marketing. 2004; 68 (1): 90–108.

30. Eng TY, Okten D. Exploring a dynamic framework of innovative capability: a theoretical integration of technological and marketing capabilities. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2011;23: 1001–1013.

31. OECD. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. 3rd ed. Paris: OECD Publishing. 2005.

32. Hair JF Jr., Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed: Prentice Hall. 2009

33. Heiko G. Exploring the contribution of management innovation to the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management. 2011;40: 1238–1250.

34. Nieves J, Haller S. Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources. Tourism Management. 2014; 40: 224–232.

35. Deshpandé R, Farley JU, Webster JE Jr. Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing. 1993;57: 23–37.

36. Cordero R. The measurement of innovation performance in the firm: An overview. Research Policy. 1990; 19:185–92. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(90)90048-b

37. Link AN, Scott JT. Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy. 2010; 39(5): 589–601. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.006

38. Grover R. Vriens M. Questionnaire design and scale development. The handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances. 1st ed: Sage Publications, Inc. 2006.

39. Hinkin, TRA. Brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires [Electronic version]. [Cited 2019 August 18], from Cornell University, School of Hotel Administration. Available from: http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/521

40. Bagozzi R, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1988; 16: 74–94. doi: 10.1007/bf02723327

41. Benitez, J. Henseler, J. Roldán, JL. How to address endogeneity in partial least squares path modeling, 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), San Diego, CA. 2016.

42. Hult GTM. Hair JF. Proksch D. Sarstedt M. Pinkwart A. Ringle CM. Addressing Endogeneity in International Marketing Applications of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of International Marketing. 2018; 26(3): 1–21

43. Sarstedt M., Ringle CM. Cheah JH. Ting H. Moisescu OI. Radomir L. Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816618823921.

44. Wooldridge J. M. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. 4th ed. Australia: South-Western; 2009.

45. Boer H, Gertsen F. From continuous improvement to continuous innovation: a (retro)(per) spective. International Journal of Technology Management. 2003;26: 805–827.

46. Rosenzweig P. Misunderstanding the nature of company performance: the halo effect and other business delusions. California Management Review. 2007; 49 (4): 6–20.

47. Damanpour F, Evan WM. Organizational Innovation and Performance: The Problem of "Organizational Lag". Administrative Science Quarterly. 1984;29:392–409.

48. Yoo J, Lee K, Choi M. Crowdsourcing for device manufacturers in the convergent media industry. Communications & Strategies. 2013; 89: 73–93.

49. Sudha R. A model of innovation resistance. Advances in Consumer Research. 1987; 14: 208–212.

50. Sheth JN, Stellner WH. Psychology of innovation resistance: The less developed concept (LDC) in diffusion research: College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana-Champaign, IL. 1979.

51. Schepers J. Wetzels W. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information and Management. 2007; 44 (1): 90–103


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11