How technology search facilitate technological innovation capability reconfiguration: Empirical study under emerging economy

The reconfiguration of technological innovation capability is an emergency issue for emerging economy. However, the “complementary or substitution” argument about the relationship among search strategies existed in recent studies, which hinders the reconfiguration of technological innovation capability. Thus, based on data from 253 high-tech enterprises, this paper employed cluster analysis and multi-logistic regression method to study the relationship between technology search and types of technological innovation capability during its reconfiguration process. There are several important results. Firstly, there are two dominant types of technological innovation capability during each stage of capability reconfiguration: a) knowledge assimilation capability; b) knowledge assimilation and creation capability. Secondly, there are different technology search facilitate each type of technological innovation capability during its reconfiguration: a)compared to other search strategy, the synergy between external boundary spanning search and internal boundary spanning search strategy, more easily lead to knowledge assimilation capability(compared to other capability structure types); b)compared to other knowledge search strategy, external boundary spanning search is more likely to result in knowledge assimilation and creation capability (compared to other types of capability structure types). This paper not only contributes dynamic capability and capability reconfiguration perspectives, but also has managerial implications.

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

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

[3]  Li Yuan,et al.  Can strategic flexibility help firms profit from product innovation , 2010 .

[4]  Dovev Lavie,et al.  Capability Reconfiguration: An Analysis of Incumbent Responses to Technological Change , 2006 .

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

[6]  Isaac Getz,et al.  How Flexibility Facilitates Innovation and Ways to Manage it in Organizations , 2004 .

[7]  U. Lichtenthaler.  Absorptive Capacity, Environmental Turbulence, and the Complementarity of Organizational Learning Processes , 2009 .

[8]  Glenn Hoetker,et al.  TECHNOLOGICAL OVERLAP, TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES, AND RESOURCE RECOMBINATION IN TECHNOLOGICAL ACQUISITIONS , 2014 .

[9]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[10]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Preparing for an Uncertain Future: Managing Organizations for Strategic Flexibility , 1997 .

[11]  Theodore A. Khoury,et al.  Shared inventions and the evolution of capabilities: Examining the biotechnology industry , 2011 .

[12]  Marina Apaydin,et al.  A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2010 .

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

[14]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Knowledge Creating Company , 2008 .

[15]  G. Pisano.  The R&D Boundaries of the Firm: An Empirical Analysis , 1990 .

[16]  Kuang-Peng Hung,et al.  Exploring Open Search Strategies and Perceived Innovation Performance from the Perspective of Inter-Organizational Knowledge Flows , 2010 .

[17]  Parthiban David,et al.  Reciprocity and R&D search: Applying the behavioral theory of the firm to a communitarian context , 2014 .

[18]  Laura B. Cardinal,et al.  The Use of Knowledge for Technological Innovation Within Diversified Firms , 2007 .

[19]  Marion Poetz,et al.  Crossing Domain-Specific Boundaries in Search of Innovation: Exploring the Potential of 'Pyramiding' , 2009 .

[20]  Samina Karim,et al.  Structural Knowledge: How Executive Experience with Structural Composition Affects Intrafirm Mobility and Unit Reconfiguration , 2012 .

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

[22]  Dilip Abreu,et al.  Bargaining, Reputation and Equilibrium Selection in Repeated Games with Contracts , 2007 .

[23]  Richard C.M. Yam,et al.  An audit of technological innovation capabilities in chinese firms: some empirical findings in Beijing, China , 2004 .

[24]  David L. Deeds,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Alliances in Biotechnology: A System of New Product Development , 2004 .

[25]  Will Mitchell,et al.  Complementarity, capabilities, and the boundaries of the firm: the impact of within‐firm and interfirm expertise on concurrent sourcing of complementary components , 2009 .

[26]  S. Dopson,et al.  When Does Search Openness Really Matter? A Contingency Study of Health‐Care Innovation Projects , 2013 .

[27]  Helena Forsman,et al.  Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors , 2011 .

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

[29]  CassimanBruno,et al.  In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy , 2006 .

[30]  Z. Zhao,et al.  Beyond boundary spanners: The ‘collective bridge’ as an efficient interunit structure for transferring collective knowledge , 2013 .