Exploration and exploitation innovation processes : The role of organizational slack in R & D intensive firms.

Abstract This study considers how organizational slack (available and recoverable) affects the process of innovation by facilitating or hindering the process of exploration and exploitation in the case of technology intensive firms. It is argued that the R & D intensity of the firm moderates the effect of organizational slack on innovation quantity, innovation quality as well as the process of exploration and exploitation. These hypotheses are tested using a sample of 208 technology intensive firms in a variety of manufacturing industries during 1989–1995. The hypotheses are supported for the measure of available slack but not recoverable slack. These findings suggest that different types of slack may impact firm behavior in different ways.

[1]  Toby E. Stuart.  Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates i , 2000 .

[2]  T. Allen.  Managing the flow of technology , 1977 .

[3]  Atulya Sarin,et al.  Agency theory and the influence of equity ownership structure on corporate diversification strategies , 1999 .

[4]  Jitendra V. Singh.  Performance, Slack, and Risk Taking in Organizational Decision Making , 1986 .

[5]  Franco Malerba,et al.  Technological entry, exit and survival: an empirical analysis of patent data , 1999 .

[6]  Scott W. Geiger,et al.  A multidimensional examination of slack and its impact on innovation. , 2002 .

[7]  Jesper B. Sørensen,et al.  Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation , 2000 .

[8]  Anthony F. Breitzman,et al.  Technological Powerhouse or Diluted Competence: Techniques for Assessing Mergers Via Patent Analysis , 2002 .

[9]  Devendra Sahal,et al.  Technological guideposts and innovation avenues , 1993 .

[10]  David Ahlstrom,et al.  Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective , 1997 .

[11]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Science as a Map in Technological Search , 2000 .

[12]  H. Leibenstein,et al.  Organizational or Frictional Equilibria, X-Efficiency, and the Rate of Innovation , 1969 .

[13]  V. A. Thompson.  Bureaucracy and innovation , 1969 .

[14]  A. Rip.  Science and technology as dancing partners , 1992 .

[15]  L. Gómez-Mejia,et al.  IS CEO PAY IN HIGH-TECHNOLOGY FIRMS RELATED TO INNOVATION? , 2000 .

[16]  M. C. Jensen,et al.  THEORY OF THE FIRM: MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR, AGENCY COSTS AND OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE , 1976 .

[17]  L. Gómez-Mejia,et al.  A Behavioral Agency Model of Managerial Risk Taking , 1998 .

[18]  Mark P. Sharfman,et al.  Antecedents of Organizational Slack , 1988 .

[19]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  International Diversification: Effects on Innovation and Firm Performance in Product-Diversified Firms , 1997 .

[20]  B. Gerhart,et al.  The effects of research and development intensity on managerial compensation in large organizations , 1991 .

[21]  Vasudevan Ramanujam,et al.  Research on corporate diversification: A synthesis , 1989 .

[22]  E. Johnsen.  Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[23]  David L. Deeds,et al.  The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry , 1999 .

[24]  F. Scherer,et al.  Patent Statistics as a Measure of Technical Change , 1969, Journal of Political Economy.

[25]  Cheng Hsiao,et al.  Analysis of Panel Data , 1987 .

[26]  Fariborz Damanpour,et al.  The Adoption of Technological, Administrative, and Ancillary Innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors , 1987 .

[27]  P. Bierly,et al.  Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry , 1996 .

[28]  M. C. Jensen,et al.  Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers , 1999 .

[29]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[30]  G. Monahan.  State of the Art—A Survey of Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes: Theory, Models, and Algorithms , 1982 .

[31]  Francis Narin,et al.  Citation rates to technologically important patents , 1981 .

[32]  L. Bourgeois.  On the Measurement of Organizational Slack , 1981 .

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

[34]  D. Edge,et al.  Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science , 1992 .

[35]  Barry Barnes,et al.  The interaction of science and technology , 1982 .

[36]  G. George.  Slack Resources and the Performance of Privately Held Firms , 2005 .

[37]  Joseph L. C. Cheng,et al.  Organizational Slack and Response to Environmental Shifts: The Impact of Resource Allocation Patterns , 1997 .

[38]  P. Bromiley.  Testing a Causal Model of Corporate Risk Taking and Performance , 1991 .

[39]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators , 2004 .

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

[41]  P. Kroes,et al.  Technological Development and Science in the Industrial Age , 1992 .

[42]  Stephen M. Shortell,et al.  New Organizational Forms for Enhancing Innovation: The Case of Internal Corporate Joint Ventures , 1991 .

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

[44]  A. Pakes,et al.  Patents and R&D at the Firm Level: A First Look , 1984 .

[45]  B. Baltagi,et al.  Econometric Analysis of Panel Data , 2020, Springer Texts in Business and Economics.

[46]  J. Child.  Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice , 1972 .

[47]  D. Mowery,et al.  Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm , 1998 .

[48]  F. Narin,et al.  Science and Technology as Predictors of Stock Performance , 1999 .

[49]  Douglas D. Moesel,et al.  The Market for Corporate Control and Firm Innovation , 1996 .

[50]  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..

[51]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[52]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  A cognitive model of innovation , 1998 .

[53]  G. Dosi.  Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation , 1988 .

[54]  Gordon E. Greenley,et al.  A Comparison of Slack Resources in High and Low Performing British Companies , 1998 .

[55]  Timothy B. Palmer,et al.  Decoupling risk taking from income stream uncertainty: a holistic model of risk , 1999 .

[56]  Derek J. de Solla Price,et al.  Science, Technology and Society a Cross-Disciplinary Perspective , 1978 .

[57]  Basil Achilladelis,et al.  The dynamics of technological innovation: the case of the pharmaceutical industry , 2001 .

[58]  Bronwyn H Hall,et al.  Market value and patent citations , 2005 .

[59]  Curba Morris Lampert,et al.  Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions , 2001 .

[60]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities , 2007 .

[61]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Responding to technological maturity: A socio-cognitive model of science and innovation in technological communities , 2007 .

[62]  O. Williamson.  The economics of discretionary behavior : managerial objectives in a theory of the firm , 1965 .

[63]  F. Narin,et al.  Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents , 1991 .

[64]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  A Role-Based Ecology of Technological Change , 1995, American Journal of Sociology.

[65]  R. Gulati.  Is Slack Good or Bad for Innovation ? , 2007 .

[66]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .