The role of absorptive capacity and innovation strategy in the design of industry 4.0 business Models - A comparison between SMEs and large enterprises

Abstract Technological innovations often lead to redesigns in the business models of established companies, requiring them to incorporate new external knowledge into internal activities. Against this background, this study integrates the concepts of business model design, absorptive capacity, and innovation strategy into a novel research model, which analyzes the redesign of established business models in response to the emergence of Industry 4.0. Industry 4.0, also known as the Industrial Internet of Things, constitutes a contemporary research context that is highly relevant for corporate practice but scarcely regarded in management literature until now. The article contains an analysis of data from 221 German industrial enterprises, conducted through structural equation modeling, with separate data for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large enterprises. First, the results indicate that the acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and exploitation of knowledge from the environment enable companies to engage in both exploratory and exploitative innovation strategies. Furthermore, the paper includes an evaluation of the role of exploratory and exploitative innovation strategies that reflects in efficiency-centered and novelty-centered business model designs. The distinct characteristics differentiating SMEs from large enterprises are also explained. The implications of absorptive capacity on innovation strategies, which influence the redesign of extant business models, are discussed from a research and managerial perspective.

[1]  D. Teece.  Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation , 2010 .

[2]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma , 2007 .

[3]  Clay M. Voorhees,et al.  Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies , 2016 .

[4]  C. Hill,et al.  The Performance of Incumbent firms in the Face of Radical Technological Innovation , 2003 .

[5]  C. Baden‐Fuller,et al.  Business Models and Technological Innovation , 2013 .

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

[7]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[8]  W. Reinartz,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of the Efficacy of Covariance-Based and Variance-Based SEM , 2009 .

[9]  Andre Hanelt,et al.  Understanding the influence of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity on the process of business model change – the case of on‐premise and cloud‐computing software , 2016, Inf. Syst. J..

[10]  M. Jacobides,et al.  Benefiting from Innovation: Value Creation, Value Appropriation and the Role of Industry Architectures , 2006 .

[11]  Paulo Duarte,et al.  A PLS Model to Study Brand Preference: An Application to the Mobile Phone Market , 2010 .

[12]  S. Zahra,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension , 2002 .

[13]  Balaji R. Koka,et al.  The Reification of Absorptive Capacity: A Critical Review and Rejuvenation of the Construct , 2006 .

[14]  Elkin Olaguer Pérez Sánchez,et al.  Measurement of potential absorption capacity in Colombia's innovative companies , 2017 .

[15]  R. Amit,et al.  The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance , 2008 .

[16]  Biao Sun,et al.  The Fit between Technological Innovation and Business Model Design for Firm Growth: Evidence from China , 2014 .

[17]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma , 2007 .

[18]  Glauco Henrique de Sousa Mendes,et al.  Servitization and Industry 4.0 convergence in the digital transformation of product firms: A business model innovation perspective , 2019, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[19]  P. Almeida,et al.  When Do Acquisitions Facilitate Technological Exploration and Exploitation? , 2012 .

[20]  H. Winklhofer,et al.  Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development , 2001 .

[21]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  The Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Past Practices and Recommendations for Future Applications , 2012 .

[22]  Rudolf R. Sinkovics,et al.  The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing , 2009 .

[23]  Frank T. Rothaermel,et al.  Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[24]  Heiko Gebauer,et al.  Absorptive capacity, learning processes and combinative capabilities as determinants of strategic innovation , 2012 .

[25]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research , 2014 .

[26]  J. West,et al.  Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation , 2013 .

[27]  C. Gibson,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS , CONSEQUENCES , AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[28]  Frank Teuteberg,et al.  Understanding the implications of digitisation and automation in the context of Industry 4.0: A triangulation approach and elements of a research agenda for the construction industry , 2016, Comput. Ind..

[29]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[30]  M. Tushman,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Organizations , 2010 .

[31]  Kaja Rangus,et al.  The interplay of decentralization, employee involvement and absorptive capacity on firms' innovation and business performance , 2017 .

[32]  K. Voigt,et al.  Sustainable Industrial Value Creation: Benefits and Challenges of Industry 4.0 , 2017, Digital Disruptive Innovation.

[33]  Qing Cao,et al.  Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[34]  M. Porter,et al.  How Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Companies , 2015 .

[35]  Pankaj C. Patel,et al.  How Do Young Firms Manage Product Portfolio Complexity? The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Ambidexterity , 2012 .

[36]  C. Markides.  Business Model Innovation: What Can the Ambidexterity Literature Teach US? , 2013 .

[37]  Harry Boer,et al.  A Business Model Innovation Typology , 2015, Decis. Sci..

[38]  M. Lubatkin,et al.  Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration , 2006 .

[39]  Ranjay Gulati,et al.  Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies between Formal and Informal Organization , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[40]  F. Schiavone,et al.  Understanding business model in the Internet of Things industry , 2018, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[41]  J. Müller,et al.  Sustainable Industrial Value Creation in SMEs: A Comparison between Industry 4.0 and Made in China 2025 , 2018, International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology.

[42]  C. Fornell,et al.  Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics , 1981 .

[43]  K. Voigt,et al.  Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0 , 2018, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[44]  N. Foss,et al.  Fifteen Years of Research on Business Model Innovation , 2017 .

[45]  S. Lambert,et al.  Applications of the business model in studies of enterprise success, innovation and classification: An analysis of empirical research from 1996 to 2010 , 2013 .

[46]  Jochen Wirtz,et al.  Unlocking value from machines: business models and the industrial internet of things , 2017 .

[47]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[48]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .

[49]  Edward G. Carmines,et al.  Reliability and Validity Assessment , 1979 .

[50]  N. Foss,et al.  Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions , 2015 .

[51]  H. Chesbrough.  Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers , 2010 .

[52]  Christopher L. Tucci,et al.  A Critical Assessment of Business Model Research , 2017 .

[53]  Ellen Enkel,et al.  Exploratory and exploitative innovation: To what extent do the dimensions of individual level absorptive capacity contribute? , 2017 .

[54]  Rögnvaldur J. Saemundsson,et al.  Antecedents of Innovation Strategies in New Technology‐based Firms: Interactions between the Environment and Founder Team Composition , 2014 .

[55]  M. Sarstedt,et al.  A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling , 2015 .

[56]  Johannes W. Veile,et al.  Lessons learned from Industry 4.0 implementation in the German manufacturing industry , 2019, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.

[57]  Baoliang Hu,et al.  Linking business models with technological innovation performance through organizational learning , 2014 .

[58]  Alfredo De Massis,et al.  Motivation Gaps and Implementation Traps: The Paradoxical and Time‐Varying Effects of Family Ownership on Firm Absorptive Capacity , 2019, Journal of Product Innovation Management.

[59]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation and Peformance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators , 2006, Manag. Sci..