Factors affecting product innovation performance according to dynamics of environment: evidence from Korean high-tech enterprises in manufacturing sector

Recently product innovation is essential for high–tech enterprises to achieve the competitive advantages. Therefore, enterprises have to develop the optimal strategy that can effectively and directly increase the product innovation performance (PIP) while considering the changing pace and innovation dynamics of their industries. Although previous research revealed innovation factors that affect product innovation, few research has considered the direct influence of the factors on PIP with considering the differences of the relative importance of the factors according to the product innovation cycle time. The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors directly affecting on PIP and compare the relative importance of the factors in dynamic and non–dynamic environment. To this end, we conducted ordinary least square regression analysis using an empirical data extracted from Korea Innovation Survey 2010. Regression results reveal that some factors are only effective for the dynamic environment while some factors affect both environments.

[1]  Paul Herbig,et al.  Innovation Inertia: THE POWER OF THE INSTALLED BASE , 1993 .

[2]  C. Merle Crawford,et al.  New Products Management , 1983 .

[3]  Irene Bertschek,et al.  Product and Process Innovation As a Response To Increasing Imports and Foreign Direct-investment , 1995 .

[4]  S. Liao,et al.  Relationships between knowledge inertia, organizational learning and organization innovation , 2008 .

[5]  Richard A. Parker,et al.  Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide , 1992 .

[6]  Noel P. Greis,et al.  Absorptive capacity and new product development , 2001 .

[7]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  On the Sources and Significance of Interindustry Differences in Technological Opportunities , 1995 .

[8]  Morton I. Kamien,et al.  Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey , 1975 .

[9]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  Technical change, competition and vertical integration , 1986 .

[10]  Danny Miller,et al.  SOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES OF COMPETITIVE INERTIA: A STUDY OF THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY. , 1994 .

[11]  Z. Ács,et al.  Innovation, Market Structure, and Firm Size , 1987 .

[12]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  An Overview of Innovation , 2009 .

[13]  Kannan Srinivasan,et al.  New product development structures and time-to-market , 1997 .

[14]  Thomas Hatzichronoglou.  Revision of the High-Technology Sector and Product Classification , 1997 .

[15]  C. Koeller,et al.  Innovation, market structure and firm size: A simultaneous equations model , 1995 .

[16]  Abdul Ali,et al.  Pioneering Versus Incremental Innovation: Review and Research Propositions , 1994 .

[17]  Jina Kang,et al.  HOW DO FIRMS SOURCE EXTERNAL KNOWLEDGE FOR INNOVATION? ANALYSING EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT KNOWLEDGE SOURCING METHODS , 2009 .

[18]  Richard A. Parker,et al.  Designing and conducting survey research , 2016 .

[19]  Albert N. Link,et al.  Public/Private Partnerships: Stimulating Competition in a Dynamic Market , 2001 .

[20]  M. Lubatkin,et al.  Learning together and apart: A model of reciprocal interfirm learning , 2001 .

[21]  Anthony Thirlwall,et al.  Technical Progress: A Survey , 1972 .

[22]  L. Nesta,et al.  What kind of knowledge can a firm absorb , 1999 .

[23]  D. Sull,et al.  Why good companies go bad. , 1999, Harvard business review.

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

[25]  Len M. Nichols,et al.  Contributions of Diversification, Promotion, and R&D to the Value of Multiproduct Firms: A Tobin's q Approach , 1986 .

[26]  Israel Zang,et al.  Meet me halfway: research joint ventures and absorptive capacity , 2000 .

[27]  J. Marshall.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2004 .

[28]  J. West.  Dealing with Darwin: How Great Companies Innovate at Every Phase of Their Evolution , 2007 .

[29]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Technology integration: turning great research into great products , 1997 .

[30]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses , 1985 .

[31]  J. Neter,et al.  Applied linear statistical models : regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs , 1974 .

[32]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[33]  Gary L. Frazier,et al.  A Transaction Cost Analysis Model of Channel Integration in International Markets , 1990 .

[34]  John Preston,et al.  Winning at New Products , 1988 .

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

[36]  Chung-Hsiung Fang,et al.  Organizational learning capability and organizational innovation: The moderating role of knowledge inertia , 2011 .

[37]  Michael Fritsch,et al.  Product Innovation, Process Innovation, and Size , 2001 .

[38]  Michael Fritsch,et al.  Who cooperates on R&D? , 2001 .

[39]  Teresa García-Marco,et al.  Firms' motivations for cooperative R&D: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms , 2001 .

[40]  B. RenÃ,et al.  Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance , 2004 .

[41]  Stephen Roper,et al.  The Determinants of Innovation: R & D, Technology Transfer and Networking Effects , 1999 .

[42]  G. Hamel.  Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances , 1991 .

[43]  M. Barratt.  Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain , 2004 .

[44]  M. Hannan,et al.  The Population Ecology of Organizations , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[45]  M. Carree,et al.  Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies , 2004 .

[46]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  The Size Distribution of Innovating Firms in the UK: 1945-1983 , 1987 .

[47]  Terry C. Blum,et al.  Adoption of Workplace Substance Abuse Prevention Programs: Strategic Choice and Institutional Perspectives , 2005 .

[48]  A. Manseau,et al.  Public policy and construction innovation , 2001 .

[49]  Steven Lustgarten,et al.  Mobility Barriers and Tobin's q , 1987 .

[50]  Laura B. Cardinal,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of R&D, Patents, and Product Innovation on Firm Performance , 2010 .

[51]  Steven Klepper,et al.  A Reprise of Size and R & D , 1996 .

[52]  B. Tether.  Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis , 2002 .

[53]  Mark Hirschey,et al.  Market Structure and Market Value , 1985 .

[54]  A. Moreira,et al.  Knowledge capability flows in buyer‐supplier relationships , 2009 .

[55]  Tobias Schmidt,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: One Size Fits All? Firm-level Analysis of Absorptive Capacity for Different Kinds of Knowledge , 2005 .

[56]  Fr¬¥ed¬¥erique Sachwald,et al.  Co-operative R&D: why and with whom?: An integrated framework of analysis , 2003 .

[57]  Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsreihe,et al.  R & D cooperation and innovation activities of firms : Evidence for the German manufacturing industry , 2002 .

[58]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[59]  M. Nieto,et al.  Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers, and innovative effort , 2005 .

[60]  Lenore Newman,et al.  Uncertainty, innovation, and dynamic sustainable development , 2005 .

[61]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Empirical Patterns of Firm Growth and R&D Investment: A Quality Ladder Model Interpretation , 1997 .

[62]  John Lunn,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Process and Product Patenting: A Simultaneous Equation Framework , 1986 .

[63]  M. Hannan,et al.  Structural Inertia and Organizational Change , 1984 .

[64]  R. Veugelers.  Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing , 1997 .

[65]  Jina Kang,et al.  Revisiting knowledge transfer: Effects of knowledge characteristics on organizational effort for knowledge transfer , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[66]  J. Sutton.  Technology and Market Structure , 1998 .

[67]  R. Narula.  R&D Collaboration by SMEs: new opportunities and limitations in the face of globalisation , 2004 .

[68]  J. Robert,et al.  Organizational inertia and dynamic incentives , 2006 .

[69]  Kwaku Atuahene-Gima,et al.  Inward Technology Licensing as an Alternative to Internal R&D in New Product Development: A Conceptual Framework , 1992 .

[70]  M. Nieto,et al.  The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation , 2007 .

[71]  Yadong Luo,et al.  Partner Selection and Venturing Success: The Case of Joint Ventures with Firms in the People's Republic of China , 1997 .

[72]  Hao-Chen Huang,et al.  Strategic linkage process and value-driven system: A dynamic analysis of high-tech firms in a newly-industrialized country , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..