Learning Capability, Technological Parity, and Innovation Mode Use

The purpose of this research was to examine whether a firm's learning capability interacts with industry technological parity to predict innovation mode use. Learning capability is conceptualized in the current research as a firm's ability to develop or acquire the new knowledge-based resources and skills needed to offer new products. Industry technological parity is conceptualized as the extent to which similarity and equality exist among the technological competencies of the firms in an industry. Three generic modes of innovation are considered: internal, cooperative, and external innovation. These modes reflect the development of new products based solely on internal resources, the collaborative development of new products (i.e., with one or more development partners), and the acquisition of fully developed products from external sources, respectively. The premises of this research are that (1) technological parity can create incentives or disincentives for innovating in a particular mode, depending upon the value of external innovative resources relative to the value of internal innovative resources and (2) firms will choose innovation modes that reflect a combination of their abilities and incentives to innovate alone, with others, or through others. Survey research and secondary sources were used to collect data from 119 high-technology firms. Results indicate that firms exhibit greater use of internal and external innovation when high levels of industry technological parity are matched by high levels of firm learning capability. By contrast, a negative relationship between learning capability and industry technological parity is associated with greater use of the cooperative mode of innovation. Thus, a single, common internal capability—learning capability—interacts with the level of technological parity in the environment to significantly predict three distinct innovation modes—modes that are not inherently dependent upon one another. As such, a firm's internal ability to innovate, as reflected in learning capability, has relevance well beyond that firm's likely internal innovation output. It also predicts the firm's likely use of cooperative and external innovation when considered in light of the level of industry technological parity. A practical implication of these findings is that companies with modest learning capabilities are not inherently precluded from innovating. Rather, they can innovate through modes for which conditions in their current environments do not constitute significant obstacles to innovation output. In particular, modest learning capabilities are associated with higher innovative output in the internal, cooperative, and external modes when industry technological parity levels are low, high, and low, respectively. Conversely, strong learning capabilities tend to be associated with higher innovative output in the internal, cooperative, and external modes when industry technological parity levels are high, low, and high, respectively.

[1]  G. Zaltman,et al.  Innovations and organizations , 2020, Organizational Innovation.

[2]  Pn Khandwalla,et al.  Some top management styles, their context and performance,” Organization and Administrative Science, Vol. , pp. 21 , 1977 .

[3]  Subhash Sharma,et al.  Identification and Analysis of Moderator Variables , 1981 .

[4]  P. H. Friesen,et al.  Innovation in Conservative and Entrepreneurial Firms: Two Models of Strategic Momentum , 1982 .

[5]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance , 1986 .

[6]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

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

[8]  Thomas J. Peters,et al.  Part One: Get Innovative or Get Dead , 1990 .

[9]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  The Economics of Small Firms , 1990 .

[10]  N. Nagelkerke,et al.  A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination , 1991 .

[11]  T. Devinney,et al.  The Impact of New Product Introductions on the Market Value of Firms , 1993 .

[12]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  Effects Of Acquisitions on R&D Inputs and Outputs , 1991 .

[13]  Cynthia A. Lengnick-Hall,et al.  A conceptual framework for evaluating designs for corporate innovation , 1991 .

[14]  F. Damanpour Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis Of Effects Of Determinants and Moderators , 1991 .

[15]  J. Barney Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[16]  Cynthia A. Lengnick-Hall,et al.  Strategic configurations and designs for corporate entrepreneurship: Exploring the relationship between cohesiveness and performance , 1992 .

[17]  Jeffrey R. Williams,et al.  How Sustainable is Your Competitive Advantage? , 1992 .

[18]  J. Hagedoorn Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Nterorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences , 1993 .

[19]  Gary P. Pisano,et al.  Collaborative Product Development and the Market for Know-How: Strategies and Structures in the Biotechnology Industry , 1993 .

[20]  D. Teece Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[21]  R. E. Gee Finding and Commercializing New Businesses , 1994 .

[22]  Timothy R. Hinkin A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations , 1995 .

[23]  M. Kotabe,et al.  The role of strategic alliances in high‐technology new product development , 1995 .

[24]  M. Hitt,et al.  The new competitive landscape , 1995 .

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

[26]  Ranjay Gulati,et al.  Is Slack Good or Bad for Innovation , 1996 .

[27]  Anthony J. DiBella,et al.  How Organizations Learn: An Integrated Strategy for Building Learning Capability , 1997 .

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

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

[30]  Sabine Reddy,et al.  The choice between mergers/acquisitions and joint ventures : The case of Japanese investors in the United States , 1997 .

[31]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

[32]  J. Covin,et al.  Adherence to plans, risk taking, and environment as predictors of firm growth , 1998 .

[33]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning , 1998 .

[34]  Gary S. Lynn,et al.  Learning Is the Critical Success Factor in Developing Truly New Products , 1998 .

[35]  G. Hult,et al.  Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination , 1998 .

[36]  Barbara W. Keats,et al.  Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century , 1998 .

[37]  W. Powell Learning from Collaboration: Knowledge and Networks in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries , 1998 .

[38]  J. Hage Organizational innovation and organizational change , 1999 .

[39]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  The Antecedents and Consequences of Firm-Level Entrepreneurship: The State of the Field , 1999 .

[40]  G. Hamel Leading the Revolution , 2000 .

[41]  G. Ahuja The duality of collaboration : Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages , 2000 .

[42]  Edward B. Roberts,et al.  Ally or Acquire? How Technology Leaders Decide , 2001 .

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

[44]  R. Duane Ireland,et al.  Mergers and Acquisitions: A Guide to Creating Value for Stakeholders , 2001 .

[45]  Richard L. Priem,et al.  Is the Resource-Based “View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? , 2001 .

[46]  Edward B. Roberts,et al.  New ventures for corporate growth , 2002 .

[47]  Kathleen R. Allen Bringing New Technology to Market , 2002 .

[48]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities , 2002 .

[49]  Michael A. Hitt,et al.  Conflicting Voices: The Effects of Institutional Ownership Heterogeneity and Internal Governance on Corporate Innovation Strategies , 2002 .

[50]  M. Sarkar,et al.  The conditioning effect of time on firm survival: An industry life cycle approach , 2002 .

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

[52]  Alexander Styhre,et al.  Dynamic learning capability and actionable knowledge creation: clinical R&D in a pharmaceutical company , 2002 .

[53]  Ramon C. Littell,et al.  SAS for Linear Models , 2002 .

[54]  David R. King,et al.  Complementary Resources and the Exploitation of Technological Innovations , 2003 .

[55]  K. Scott Swan,et al.  A Product and Process Model of the Technology-Sourcing Decision , 2003 .

[56]  Christopher T. Taylor,et al.  R&D Intensity and Acquisitions in High-Technology Industries: Evidence from the US Electronic and Electrical Equipment Industries , 2003 .

[57]  Will Mitchell,et al.  Innovating Through Acquisition and Internal Development: A Quarter-Century of Boundary Evolution at Johnson & Johnson , 2004 .

[58]  R. Grant,et al.  A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic Alliances , 2004 .

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

[60]  David G. Sirmon,et al.  Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box , 2007 .

[61]  Yung-Ming Cheng Determinants of FDI Mode Choice: Acquisition, Brownfield, and Greenfield Entry in Foreign Markets , 2009 .