Complementarities between organisational strategies and innovation

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether organizational strategies in various manufacturing industries are complementary with innovation. In particular, our interest is to discover which organizational strategies are complementary with major innovations (world-first and Canada-first). Knowledge of complementarity should pave the way for creating sustainable competitive advantage because the use of a complex strategy may be difficult to imitate. In other words, competitive advantage increases as the complexity of the strategy increases (i.e. because the number of strategy combinations follows a power law), which acts as a barrier to potential imitators (Rivkin, J.W. (2000) Imitation of Complex Strategies. Management Science, 46(6), 824–844.). Because of the static nature of our results (productivity and profit are for 1997), their interpretation can only be tentative. Thus, our research is really a first step along the road to understanding the (potential) importance of complementarities among firm strategies. Caveats aside, managers may want to compare their own firm’s emphasis on particular strategies against what is empirically determined to be complementary with innovation and high-performance within their industry. The frequency of complementary pairs that involve innovation range from 40 to 50% depending on whether we are talking about profit, productivity, or strategies. This result is important—as it means that innovation outcomes are statistically significant for both increased productivity and increased profit. Furthermore, innovation was found to be complementary with many organizational strategies. The complementary strategies across industries were quite different, but this was expected to occur.

[1]  J. L. Bower,et al.  Business policy: text and cases , 1973 .

[2]  M. Porter,et al.  From Entry Barriers to Mobility Barriers: Conjectural Decisions and Contrived Deterrence to New Competition , 1977 .

[3]  Donald M. Topkis,et al.  Minimizing a Submodular Function on a Lattice , 1978, Oper. Res..

[4]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[5]  Gregory D. Wozniak The Adoption of Interrelated Innovations: A Human Capital Approach , 1984 .

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

[7]  Karel Cool,et al.  Strategic Group Formation and Performance: The Case of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry, 1963-1982 , 1987 .

[8]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization , 1990 .

[9]  David T. Wilson,et al.  Industrial innovation and firm performance: A re-conceptualization and exploratory structural equation analysis☆ , 1993 .

[10]  Karel Cool,et al.  Rivalry, Strategic Groups and Firm Profitability , 1993 .

[11]  D. M. Topkis The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Comment , 1995 .

[12]  Nicholas Argyres,et al.  Technology strategy, governance structure and interdivisional coordination , 1995 .

[13]  S. Athey,et al.  Product and Process Flexibility in an Innovative Environment , 1995 .

[14]  R. Crandall,et al.  Old Dogs and New Tricks: Determinants of the Adoption of Productivity-Enhancing Work Practices , 1995 .

[15]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Reply , 1995 .

[16]  Donald M. Topkis,et al.  Comparative Statics of the Firm , 1995 .

[17]  H. Thomas,et al.  Strategic Groups as Reference Groups: Theory, Modeling and Empirical Examination of Industry and Competitive Strategy , 1995 .

[18]  P. Bushnell,et al.  The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Comment , 1995 .

[19]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing , 1995 .

[20]  Henry Mintzberg Musings on management. Ten ideas designed to rile everyone who cares about management. , 1996, Harvard business review.

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

[22]  Rinaldo Evangelista,et al.  NATURE AND IMPACT OF INNOVATION IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY : SOME EVIDENCE FROM THE ITALIAN INNOVATION SURVEY , 1997 .

[23]  K. Langfield-Smith,et al.  The relationship between strategic priorities, management techniques and management accounting: an empirical investigation using a systems approach , 1998 .

[24]  S. Athey,et al.  An Empirical Framework for Testing Theories About Complimentarity in Organizational Design , 1998 .

[25]  Bruno Crépon,et al.  Research, Innovation, and Productivity: an Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level , 1998 .

[26]  Susan F. Haka,et al.  Cost System and Incentive Structure Effects on Innovation, Efficiency and Profitability in Teams , 1999 .

[27]  M. Porter What is strategy , 2000 .

[28]  Jan W. Rivkin Imitation of Complex Strategies , 2000 .

[29]  Rinaldo Evangelista,et al.  Sectoral Patterns Of Technological Change In Services , 2000 .

[30]  L. Klomp,et al.  Linking Innovation and Firm Performance: A New Approach , 2001 .

[31]  Pierre Mohnen,et al.  Complementarities in Innovation Policy , 2001 .

[32]  Volker Mahnke,et al.  Knowledge Strategies, Firm Types, and Complementarity in Human-Resource Practices , 2001 .

[33]  Jacques Mairesse,et al.  Accounting for Innovation and Measuring Innovativeness: An Illustrative Framework and an Application , 2002 .

[34]  Alfred Kleinknecht,et al.  Innovation and Firm Performance , 2002 .

[35]  Brian P. Cozzarin,et al.  Innovation quality and manufacturing firms' performance in Canada , 2004 .

[36]  D. Third OECD/Eurostat . Oslo Manual-Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Paris, France: , 2005 .

[37]  O. Manual,et al.  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development the Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data , 2022 .