Selectivity in search strategies for innovation: from incremental to radical, from manufacturing to services

The shift towards more open and interconnected innovation activities has been a major topic of recent academic and practitioner discussions. Firms have to connect their in-house R&D activities with external partners, such as leading customers or universities, to increase the effectiveness of their innovation activities. Hence, management needs to define search strategies for valuable knowledge in its environment. In this paper we argue that search strategies have to reflect the heterogeneity of various knowledge sources with regard to the knowledge they can provide and how these sources can be activated. We hypothesize that search strategies driven by science, suppliers and the product market will contribute differently to innovation success with radically new versus incrementally refined products. We suggest that innovation in service sectors is fundamentally different in nature which influences the performance of different search strategies. We test these hypotheses for a sample of more than 5,000 firms from five European countries. The results support our hypotheses and highlight the potentials and shortcomings of different search strategies.

[1]  P. Romer.  Endogenous Technological Change , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[2]  John C. Narver,et al.  Market‐oriented is more than being customer‐led , 1999 .

[3]  A. Johne,et al.  New service development: a review of the literature and annotated bibliography , 1998 .

[4]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[5]  Robert G. Cooper,et al.  The Performance Impact of an International Orientation on Product Innovation , 1988 .

[6]  N. Harabi,et al.  Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis , 1995 .

[7]  W. Dolfsma,et al.  The Process of New Service Development: Issues of Formilization and Appropriability , 2004 .

[8]  Kalu Ojah,et al.  Investors' valuation of global product design and development , 2003 .

[9]  P. Adler,et al.  Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept , 2002 .

[10]  Tobias Schmidt,et al.  Empirical Evidence on the Success of R&D Cooperation—Happy Together? , 2008 .

[11]  J. March,et al.  Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking , 1987 .

[12]  K. Pavitt.  Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change : Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory : Research Policy , 1984 .

[13]  Paul A. David,et al.  The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness , 2000 .

[14]  M. Rothschild,et al.  The Economics of Patents , 2002 .

[15]  Paul Israel,et al.  The Sources of Innovation , 1990 .

[16]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  How To Make Strategic Alliances Work , 2001 .

[17]  John C. Narver,et al.  RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMUNICATIONS CUSTOMER-LED AND MARKET-ORIENTED : LET ’ S NOT CONFUSE THE TWO , 2008 .

[18]  Nancy Gallini,et al.  The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform , 2002 .

[19]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[20]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms , 2006 .

[21]  Boris Durisin,et al.  Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization , 2007 .

[22]  Gabriel Szulanski.  The Process of Knowledge Transfer: A Diachronic Analysis of Stickiness , 2000 .

[23]  S. Durmusoglu.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2004 .

[24]  A. Nerkar,et al.  Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry , 2001 .

[25]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[26]  Rudolf Maleri,et al.  Grundlagen der Dienstleistungsproduktion , 1994 .

[27]  C. Rammer,et al.  Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: substituting technology by management in SMEs , 2009 .

[28]  G. Hult,et al.  TOWARD GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF MARKET ORIENTATION AND THE RESOURCE-BASED VIEW , 2007 .

[29]  R. Grant.  Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .

[30]  Luc Soete,et al.  Internationalization of services: A technological perspective , 2001 .

[31]  H. Gemünden,et al.  Technological interweavement: a means of achieving innovation success , 1992 .

[32]  Z. Griliches.  Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey , 1990 .

[33]  M. Perkmann,et al.  University Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda , 2007 .

[34]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[35]  W. Mitchell,et al.  Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia , 2000 .

[36]  Torben Pedersen,et al.  Host-country environment and subsidiary competence: Extending the diamond network model , 2009 .

[37]  J. Liebeskind,et al.  Knowledge, Strategy, and the Theory of the Firm , 1996 .

[38]  E. Mansfield.  Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study , 1986 .

[39]  John E. Ettlie,et al.  Organizational Policy and Innovation Among Suppliers to the Food Processing Sector , 1983 .

[40]  J. Dutton,et al.  The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis , 1986 .

[41]  S. Mullainathan,et al.  Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data , 2001 .

[42]  R. Calantone,et al.  New Product Activities and Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Hostility , 1997 .

[43]  I. MacMillan,et al.  Competitors' responses to easily imitated new products—exploring commercial banking product introductions , 1985 .

[44]  R. Katila,et al.  Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction , 2002 .

[45]  Terri L. Moore,et al.  Regression Analysis by Example , 2001, Technometrics.

[46]  A. Link,et al.  Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. , 2004 .

[47]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning , 1998 .

[48]  Tobias Schmidt,et al.  Empirical Evidence on the Success of R&D Co-Operation - Happy Together? , 2008 .

[49]  R. Chandy,et al.  The Incumbent's Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation , 2000 .

[50]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[51]  Ulrich Kaiser.  An empirical test of models explaining research expenditures and research cooperation: evidence for the German service sector , 2002 .

[52]  Masaaki Kotabe,et al.  The Relationship Between Offshore Sourcing and Innovativeness of U.S. Multinational Firms: An Empirical Investigation , 1990 .

[53]  Faïz Gallouj,et al.  Innovation in services , 1997 .

[54]  L. Berry,et al.  Creating new markets through service innovation , 2006 .

[55]  Deb Chatterji,et al.  Accessing External Sources of Technology , 1996 .

[56]  Wallace E. Carroll,et al.  Determinants of transnational new product development capability: testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge , 2001 .

[57]  Reinhilde Veugelers,et al.  In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[58]  A. Link,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage In Informal University Technology Transfer , 2007 .

[59]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[60]  E. Mansfield,et al.  Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study , 1981 .

[61]  M. Tushman,et al.  Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and the potential for schumpeterian innovation , 1998 .

[62]  F. Gallouj.  Innovation in the Service Economy , 2002 .

[63]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  INNOVATION OBJECTIVES, KNOWLEDGE SOURCES, AND THE BENEFITS OF BREADTH , 2010 .

[64]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[65]  Richard,et al.  Interactive innovation in financial and business services : The vanguard of the service revolution , 2001 .

[66]  John C. Narver,et al.  The Positive Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability: A Balanced Replication , 2000 .

[67]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[68]  John Van Reenen,et al.  Patents, Real Options and Firm Performance , 2002 .

[69]  Derrick E. D'Souza,et al.  Toward a Contextually Anchored Service Innovation Typology , 2009, Decis. Sci..

[70]  F. Malerba,et al.  Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation , 2000 .

[71]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  Relation‐specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships , 2006 .

[72]  A. Arundel,et al.  What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms , 1998 .

[73]  Caneel K. Joyce,et al.  Innovation in Services: Corporate Culture and Investment Banking , 2007 .

[74]  José Santos,et al.  From global to metanational: how companies win in the knowledge economy , 2001, UBIQ.

[75]  F. Wynstra,et al.  Managing supplier involvement in new product development: A multiple-case study , 2006 .

[76]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications , 1990 .

[77]  R. Katila.  New Product Search Over Time: Past Ideas in Their Prime? , 2002 .

[78]  Giorgio Sirilli,et al.  Technological innovation in services and manufacturing: results from Italian surveys , 1998 .

[79]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

[80]  J. William,et al.  Innovation : Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction : Research Policy , 1987 .

[81]  B. Kogut,et al.  Exploring internal stickiness : Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm , 2007 .

[82]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  Using Supplier Networks to Learn Faster , 2004 .

[83]  Oliver Gassmann,et al.  Managing customer oriented research , 2002, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[84]  R. Barras.  Towards a theory of innovation in services , 1986 .

[85]  Robert A. Frosch,et al.  The Customer for R&D Is Always Wrong! , 1996 .

[86]  W. Abernathy.  Innovation : Mapping the winds of creative destruction * , 2003 .

[87]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[88]  Chiara Criscuolo,et al.  Global Engagement and the Innovation Activities of Firms , 2005 .

[89]  Kenneth W. Koput,et al.  A Chaotic Model of Innovative Search: Some Answers, Many Questions , 1997 .

[90]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Universities as partners in U.S. research joint ventures. , 2005 .

[91]  R. Katila,et al.  Effects of Search Timing on Innovation: The Value of Not Being in Sync with Rivals , 2008 .

[92]  Mohan Subramaniam,et al.  The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities , 2005 .

[93]  Andrew A. Toole,et al.  Business R&D and the Interplay of R&D Subsidies and Product Market Uncertainty , 2007 .

[94]  Nicholas Vonortas,et al.  Research Joint Ventures , 2003 .

[95]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? , 2003 .