Open Innovation with Relational Capital, Technological Innovation Capital, and International Performance in SMEs
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2.1. Open Innovation Perspective
2.2. Relational Capital and Technological Innovation Capability
2.3. Technological Innovation Capability and International Performance
2.4. The Mediating Effect of Technological Innovation Capability
2.5. The Moderating Effect of Alliance Proactiveness
2.6. Research Model
3. Methods
3.1. Sample and Data Collection
3.2. Measures
4. Analysis and Results
4.1. Validity and Reliability
4.2. Hypothesis Testing
5. Discussion
5.1. Results and Contributions
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ireland, R.D.; Hitt, M.A.; Vaidyanath, D. Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. J. Manag. 2002, 28, 413–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, S.H.; Fei, W.C.; Chen, C.C. Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability: An empirical study of Taiwan’s knowledge-intensive industries. J. Inf. Sci. 2007, 33, 340–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lachenmaier, S.; Wößmann, L. Does innovation cause exports? Evidence from exogenous innovation impulses and obstacles using German micro data. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 2006, 58, 317–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lichtenthaler, U.; Ernst, H. Opening up the innovation process: The role of technology aggressiveness. R&D Manag. 2009, 39, 38–54. [Google Scholar]
- Garriga, H.; Von Krogh, G.; Spaeth, S. How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013, 34, 1134–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laursen, K.; Salter, A. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 2006, 27, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monteiro, F.; Mol, M.; Birkinshaw, J. Ready to be open? Explaining the firm level barriers to benefiting from openness to external knowledge. Long Range Plann. 2017, 50, 282–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kirschbaum, R. Open innovation in practice. Res. Technol. Manag. 2005, 48, 24–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- West, J.; Bogers, M. Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 814–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anzola-Román, P.; Bayona-Sáez, C.; García-Marco, T. Organizational innovation, internal R&D and externally sourced innovation practices: Effects on technological innovation outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 91, 233–247. [Google Scholar]
- Nooteboom, B. Innovation and inter-firm linkages: New implications for policy. Res. Policy 1999, 28, 793–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, C.; Shao, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhang, L. A group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Expert. Syst. Appl. 2019, 121, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valdez-Juárez, L.E.; Castillo-Vergara, M. Technological Capabilities, Open Innovation, and Eco-Innovation: Dynamic Capabilities to Increase Corporate Performance of SMEs. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, A.P.D.; Barbieri, J.C. Innovation for sustainability: Overcoming the productivity of the sugar-and-ethanol industry’s conventional system. J. Technol Manag. Innov. 2010, 5, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neutzling, D.M.; Land, A.; Seuring, S.; do Nascimento, L.F.M. Linking sustainability-oriented innovation to supply chain relationship integration. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3448–3458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inigo, E.A.; Ritala, P.; Albareda, L. Networking for sustainability: Alliance capabilities and sustainability-oriented innovation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 89, 550–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katila, R.; Ahuja, G. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 1183–1194. [Google Scholar]
- Knight, G.A.; Cavusgil, S.T. Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2004, 35, 124–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chesbrough, H. The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2003, 45, 33–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, L.; Li, Y. Research on Industrial Policy from the Perspective of Demand-Side Open Innovation—A Case Study of Shenzhen New Energy Vehicle Industry. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Battistella, C.; De Toni, A.; Pessot, E. Framing Open Innovation in Start-Ups’ Incubators: A Complexity Theory Perspective. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yun, J.J.; Park, K.; Hahm, S.D.; Kim, D. Basic income with high open innovation dynamics: The way to the entrepreneurial state. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahuja, G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Adm. Sci. Quar. 2000, 45, 425–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Conway, S. Informal boundary-spanning communication in the innovation process: An empirical study. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1995, 7, 327–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Hippel, E. Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2005, 1, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, Y.H.; Hung, K.P. Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows. R&D Manag. 2010, 40, 292–299. [Google Scholar]
- Lichtenthaler, U.; Lichtenthaler, E. A capability-based framework for open innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. J. Manag. Stud. 2009, 46, 1315–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levinthal, D.A.; March, J.G. The myopia of learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roos, G.; Roos, J. Measuring your company’s intellectual performance. Long Range Plann. 1997, 30, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edvinsson, L.; Sullivan, P. Developing a model for managing intellectual capital. Eur. Manag. J. 1996, 14, 356–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, L.C.; Wang, C.H. Clarifying the effect of intellectual capital on performance: The mediating role of dynamic capability. Br. J. Manag. 2012, 23, 179–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, G. Intellectual Capital; Nicholas Brealey: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Duffy, J. Measuring customer capital. Strategy Leadersh. 2000, 28, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-de-Castro, G.; Delgado-Verde, M.; López-Sáez, P.; Navas-López, J.E. Towards ‘an intellectual capital-based view of the firm’: Origins and nature. J. Bus. Ethics. 2011, 98, 649–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setini, M.; Yasa, N.N.K.; Gede Supartha, I.W.; Ketut Giantari, I.; Rajiani, I. The passway of women entrepreneurship: Starting from social capital with open innovation, through to knowledge sharing and innovative performance. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ardito, L.; Petruzzelli, A.M.; Dezi, L.; Castellano, S. The influence of inbound open innovation on ambidexterity performance: Does it pay to source knowledge from supply chain stakeholders? J. Bus. Res. 2018, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Un, C.A.; Cuervo-Cazurra, A.; Asakawa, K. R&D collaborations and product innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 673–689. [Google Scholar]
- Reiche, B.S. Knowledge benefits of social capital upon repatriation: A longitudinal study of international assignees. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 49, 1052–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kale, P.; Dyer, J.H.; Singh, H. Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 747–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sambasivan, M.; Siew-Phaik, L.; Mohamed, Z.A.; Leong, Y.C. Impact of interdependence between supply chain partners on strategic alliance outcomes: Role of relational capital as a mediating construct. Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 548–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blyler, M.; Coff, R.W. Dynamic capabilities, social capital, and rent appropriation: Ties that split pies. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 677–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saxenian, A. Comment on Kenney and von Burg, ‘technology, entrepreneurship and path dependence: Industrial clustering in Silicon Valley and Route 128’. Ind. Corp. Chang. 1999, 8, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Morales, V.J.; Lloréns-Montes, F.J.; Verdu-Jover, A.J. Influence of personal mastery on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation in large firms and SMEs. Technovation 2007, 27, 547–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, S.A.; Nielsen, A.P. Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 377–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dutta, S.; Narasimhan, O.; Rajiv, S. Success in high-technology markets: Is marketing capability critical? Mark. Sci. 1999, 18, 547–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oviatt, B.M.; McDougall, P.P. Toward a theory of international new ventures. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1994, 25, 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Kim, J.; Yoo, J. Intangible resources and internationalization for the innovation performance of Chinese high-tech firms. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coombs, J.E.; Bierly, P.E., III. Measuring technological capability and performance. R&D Manag. 2006, 36, 421–438. [Google Scholar]
- Shafia, M.A.; Shavvalpour, S.; Hosseini, M.; Hosseini, R. Mediating effect of technological innovation capabilities between dynamic capabilities and competitiveness of research and technology organisations. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2016, 28, 811–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barkema, H.G.; Vermeulen, F. International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 7–26. [Google Scholar]
- McFadyen, M.A.; Cannella, A.A., Jr. Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 735–746. [Google Scholar]
- Dhanaraj, C.; Beamish, P.W. A resource-based approach to the study of export performance. J. Small. Bus. Manag. 2003, 41, 242–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkar, M.B.; Echambadi, R.; Cavusgil, S.T.; Aulakh, P.S. The influence of complementarity, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2001, 29, 358–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothaermel, F.T.; Boeker, W. Old technology meets new technology: Complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 47–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ozdemir, S.; Kandemir, D.; Eng, T.Y. The role of horizontal and vertical new product alliances in responsive and proactive market orientations and performance of industrial manufacturing firms. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 64, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medlin, C.J.; Ellegaard, C. Conceptualizing competition and rivalry in a networking business market. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 51, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 49, 1395–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lumpkin, G.T.; Dess, G.G. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schilke, O.; Goerzen, A. Alliance management capability: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 1192–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, W.M.; Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35, 128–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, S.; Lee, K. The government R&D funding and management performance: The nediating effect of technology innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 94. [Google Scholar]
- Kale, P.; Singh, H. Building firm capabilities through learning: The role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm-level alliance success. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 981–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivar. Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, A.F. An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2015, 50, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple Regressions: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Lam, L.; Nguyen, P.; Le, N.; Tran, L. The relation among organizational culture, knowledge management, and innovation capability: Its implication for open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Park, K. Dynamics from open innovation to evolutionary change. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2016, 2, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X. Business model innovation through a rectangular compass: From the perspective of open innovation with mechanism design. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristic | Frequency | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Year of establishment | Before 1990 | 50 | 28.6 |
1991–2000 | 55 | 31.4 | |
2001–2010 | 59 | 33.7 | |
2011 After | 11 | 6.3 | |
Number of employees | 50–100 | 81 | 46.3 |
101–200 | 50 | 28.6 | |
201–300 | 26 | 14.9 | |
301–500 | 18 | 10.3 | |
Industry type | Textile | 19 | 10.9 |
Machinery | 101 | 57.7 | |
Electronics | 36 | 20.6 | |
Other | 19 | 10.9 |
Item | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Relational capital 7 | 0.798 | |||
Relational capital 6 | 0.783 | |||
Relational capital 4 | 0.764 | |||
Relational capital 5 | 0.755 | |||
Relational capital 8 | 0.752 | |||
Relational capital 3 | 0.719 | |||
Relational capital 9 | 0.714 | |||
Relational capital 1 | 0.612 | |||
Relational capital 2 | 0.607 | |||
International performance 2 | 0.818 | |||
International performance 1 | 0.793 | |||
International performance 3 | 0.788 | |||
International performance 4 | 0.782 | |||
International performance 5 | 0.746 | |||
Alliance proactiveness 2 | 0.847 | |||
Alliance proactiveness 3 | 0.840 | |||
Alliance proactiveness 1 | 0.795 | |||
Alliance proactiveness 4 | 0.789 | |||
Technological innovation capability 2 | 0.863 | |||
Technological innovation capability 3 | 0.845 | |||
Technological innovation capability 4 | 0.780 | |||
Technological innovation capability 1 | 0.634 | |||
Eigen value | 8.524 | 2.700 | 2.106 | 1.792 |
% of variance | 38.747 | 12.274 | 9.574 | 1.792 |
Cumulative explained variance (%) | 38.747 | 51.021 | 60.595 | 68.742 |
Cronbach’s alpha | 0.915 | 0.897 | 0.897 | 0.856 |
Variable | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Firm age 1 | 2.87 | 0.618 | 1 | ||||||||||
2. Firm size 1 | 4.87 | 0.628 | 0.014 | 1 | |||||||||
3. Electronics | 0.21 | 0.405 | −0.014 * | 0.137 | 1 | ||||||||
4. Textile | 0.11 | 0.312 | 0.128 | −0.230 * | −0.178 * | 1 | |||||||
5. Other | 0.11 | 0.312 | 0.097 | −0.030 | −0.178 * | −0.122 | 1 | ||||||
6. AE | 0.76 | 0.425 | 0.015 | −0.316 * | −0.086 | 0.150 * | 0.020 | 1 | |||||
7. DI | 1.92 | 1.32 | −0.083 | 0.146 | 0.085 | −0.146 | −0.035 | −0.013 | 1 | ||||
8. RC | 3.53 | 0.609 | −0.006 | −0.001 | −0.019 | −0.101 | 0.131 | −0.009 | 0.098 | 1 | |||
9. TIC | 3.05 | 0.821 | −0.013 | 0.014 | −0.050 | −0.044 | 0.102 | 0.159 * | 0.007 | 0.335 ** | 1 | ||
10. AP | 3.09 | 0.711 | −0.083 | 0.113 | −0.002 | −0.225 * | 0.091 | 0.051 | 0.062 | 0.475 ** | 0.350 ** | 1 | |
11. IP | 3.34 | 0.616 | −0.072 | −0.084 | −0.096 | 0.013 | −0.012 | 0.232 ** | −0.035 | 0.414 ** | 0.454 ** | 0.349 ** | 1 |
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Firm age | −0.030 | −0.088 | −0.072 | −0.087 |
(0.097) | (0.069) | (0.067) | (0.067) | |
Firm size | 0.094 | −0.008 | −0.030 | −0.010 |
(0.103) | (0.073) | (0.071) | (0.071) | |
Electronics | 0.022 | 0.094 | 0.089 | 0.100 |
(0.153) | (0.110) | (0.108) | (0.107) | |
Textile | −0.010 | 0.047 | 0.087 | 0.094 |
(0.234) | (0.165) | (0.163) | (0.161) | |
Other | 0.071 | −0.031 | −0.044 | −0.030 |
(0.229) | (0.163) | (0.158) | (0.157) | |
Alliance experience | 0.210 ** | 0.167 * | 0.152 * | 0.163 * |
(0.147) | (0.108) | (0.105) | (0.104) | |
Degree of internationalization | −0.038 | −0.046 | −0.049 | −0.050 |
(0.046) | (0.033) | (0.032) | (0.031) | |
Relational capital | 0.408 ** | |||
(0.099) | ||||
Technological innovation capability (A) | 0.414 ** | 0.341 ** | 0.329 ** | |
(0.053) | (0.054) | (0.054) | ||
Alliance proactiveness (B) | 0.233 ** | 0.264 ** | ||
(0.062) | (0.063) | |||
Interaction term(A × B) | 0.142 * | |||
(0.047) | ||||
R2 | 0.138 | 0.239 | 0.284 | 0.303 |
ΔR2 | - | - | 0.045 | 0.018 |
F | 3.293 ** | 6.337 ** | 7.057 ** | 6.899 ** |
Path | Effect | β | SE | 95% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
LLCI | ULCI | ||||
RC → TIC → IP (H3) | Total effect | 0.411 ** | 0.070 | 0.272 | 0.549 |
Direct effect | 0.313 ** | 0.070 | 0.175 | 0.451 | |
Indirect effect | 0.097 ** | 0.033 | 0.042 | 0.170 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ryu, D.; Baek, K.H.; Yoon, J. Open Innovation with Relational Capital, Technological Innovation Capital, and International Performance in SMEs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063418
Ryu D, Baek KH, Yoon J. Open Innovation with Relational Capital, Technological Innovation Capital, and International Performance in SMEs. Sustainability. 2021; 13(6):3418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063418
Chicago/Turabian StyleRyu, Dongwoo, Kwang Ho Baek, and Junghyun Yoon. 2021. "Open Innovation with Relational Capital, Technological Innovation Capital, and International Performance in SMEs" Sustainability 13, no. 6: 3418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063418