开放式创新策略与新产品绩效的关系研究
|
摘要
企业的开放式创新策略可以分为宽度外部寻找和深度外部寻找策略,不同的企业在不同的环境下,为了提高绩效也许会采取不同的开放式创新策略。本文将企业的开放式创新机制划分为深度寻找和宽度寻找策略,将环境竞争性作为调节变量,同时将外部寻找对象划分为竞争对手和非竞争对手。结果显示,当外部寻找对象是竞争者之外的外部组织时,市场环境竞争性正向调节深度和宽度的外部寻找策略与绩效之间的关系;当外部寻找对象是竞争者时,市场环境竞争性负向调节深度的外部寻找策略与绩效之间的关系。有别于国外普遍将大型企业作为研究对象,本文的研究对象为中小企业,希望藉此为国内众多的中小企业创新实践提供理论指导。
In former studies, the measurement of open innovation is confined to a single dimension. Thus, open innovation measures either search breadth or search depth. However, single dimension measurement of open innovation cannot effectively explain the complex relationship between a firm's open innovation and the corresponding business performance. Therefore, to explore comprehensively the relationship between open innovation and its corresponding performance, we measure open innovation by using both search breadth and search depth.Although many scholars have paid attention to the influence of environmental factors on the relationship between open innovation and business performance, very few studies consider environmental factors as important mediating variables. According to strategy contingency theory, the effectiveness of outside search, which includes both search breadth and search width, will be significantly affected by the market environment(Lee, C., Lee, k. & Pennings, j. m., 2001). There are two important variables describing the market environment, namely competition intensity and volatility(Morgan, r. m. & Hunt, s. D., 1994). Existing research considers market volatility as an important environment variable(Laursen, 2014), but few studies consider the intensity of competition as an important environment variable. However, studies have shown that when competition in the market is intense, the faster new products are introduced the higher the business performance is. Because of its speed and efficiency advantages of open innovation, the cost of open innovation can often be offset by benefit in the fierce competition environment. On the contrary, when the competition is not so intense, the cost of open innovation could not be offset by the corresponding benefit. Therefore, we consider the market competitive environment as an important environment variable to fill the research gap. In previous studies, when dealing with the measurement of open innovation for outside dimensions, partners usually include suppliers, customers, universities, research institutions and other peer enterprises(Laursen, 2006). However, peer enterprises(rivals) are not listed separately. However, in the fierce competition environment cooperation in depth with competitors is obviously different from cooperation in depth with non-competitors because of knowledge leakage risks. Our study is an attempt to fill this gap. Our paper uses the questionnaire method to collect empirical data. Different from previous studies using large enterprises, our paper uses small and medium-sized enterprises as research objects. The first reason is that there are numerous small and medium-sized enterprises in China, and they are an important part of national economy. Compared with large firms, small and medium-sized enterprises lack funds and personnel. Thus, they are much more urgent to rely on open innovation to help improve innovation performance. In the process of using questionnaire to collect data, we found that the frequency of open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises is high and increasing. Empirical results show that when cooperating with non-competitors, the market environment competition positively adjusts the relationship between open innovation and the corresponding performance significantly. In a fiercely competitive environment, two types of external searches(the depth and width of the cooperation with the non-competitors) have significant positive correlations with enterprise performance. In the less fiercely competitive environment, cooperation with the non-competitors negatively adjusts the relationship between open innovation and the corresponding performance. However, when cooperating with competitors, the market environment competition negatively adjusts the relationship between open innovation and the corresponding business performance. That is, in a fiercely competitive environment, cooperating in depth with competitors negatively affects enterprise performance. For small and medium-sized enterprises, our results show that in fiercely competitive environment, cooperating both in more breadth and in more depth with non-competitors can effectively and significantly improve business performance. In contrast, cooperating in depth with competitors will reduce business performance.
In former studies, the measurement of open innovation is confined to a single dimension. Thus, open innovation measures either search breadth or search depth. However, single dimension measurement of open innovation cannot effectively explain the complex relationship between a firm's open innovation and the corresponding business performance. Therefore, to explore comprehensively the relationship between open innovation and its corresponding performance, we measure open innovation by using both search breadth and search depth.Although many scholars have paid attention to the influence of environmental factors on the relationship between open innovation and business performance, very few studies consider environmental factors as important mediating variables. According to strategy contingency theory, the effectiveness of outside search, which includes both search breadth and search width, will be significantly affected by the market environment(Lee, C., Lee, k. & Pennings, j. m., 2001). There are two important variables describing the market environment, namely competition intensity and volatility(Morgan, r. m. & Hunt, s. D., 1994). Existing research considers market volatility as an important environment variable(Laursen, 2014), but few studies consider the intensity of competition as an important environment variable. However, studies have shown that when competition in the market is intense, the faster new products are introduced the higher the business performance is. Because of its speed and efficiency advantages of open innovation, the cost of open innovation can often be offset by benefit in the fierce competition environment. On the contrary, when the competition is not so intense, the cost of open innovation could not be offset by the corresponding benefit. Therefore, we consider the market competitive environment as an important environment variable to fill the research gap. In previous studies, when dealing with the measurement of open innovation for outside dimensions, partners usually include suppliers, customers, universities, research institutions and other peer enterprises(Laursen, 2006). However, peer enterprises(rivals) are not listed separately. However, in the fierce competition environment cooperation in depth with competitors is obviously different from cooperation in depth with non-competitors because of knowledge leakage risks. Our study is an attempt to fill this gap. Our paper uses the questionnaire method to collect empirical data. Different from previous studies using large enterprises, our paper uses small and medium-sized enterprises as research objects. The first reason is that there are numerous small and medium-sized enterprises in China, and they are an important part of national economy. Compared with large firms, small and medium-sized enterprises lack funds and personnel. Thus, they are much more urgent to rely on open innovation to help improve innovation performance. In the process of using questionnaire to collect data, we found that the frequency of open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises is high and increasing. Empirical results show that when cooperating with non-competitors, the market environment competition positively adjusts the relationship between open innovation and the corresponding performance significantly. In a fiercely competitive environment, two types of external searches(the depth and width of the cooperation with the non-competitors) have significant positive correlations with enterprise performance. In the less fiercely competitive environment, cooperation with the non-competitors negatively adjusts the relationship between open innovation and the corresponding performance. However, when cooperating with competitors, the market environment competition negatively adjusts the relationship between open innovation and the corresponding business performance. That is, in a fiercely competitive environment, cooperating in depth with competitors negatively affects enterprise performance. For small and medium-sized enterprises, our results show that in fiercely competitive environment, cooperating both in more breadth and in more depth with non-competitors can effectively and significantly improve business performance. In contrast, cooperating in depth with competitors will reduce business performance.
引文
[1]Chang,Y.C.,Chang,H.T.,Chi,H.R.,Chen,M.H.,Deng,L.L.,2012.How do established firms improve radical innovation performance?The organizational capabilities view.Technovation 32,441-451.
[2]Escribano,A.,Fosfuri,A.,Tribó,J.A.,2009.Managing external knowledge flows:the moderating role of absorptive capacity.Res.Policy 38,96-105.
[3]Sidhu,J.S.,Commandeur,H.R.,lberdVoa,H.W.,2007.The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation:value of supply,demand,and spatial search for innovation.Organ.Sci.18,20-38.
[4]Knudsen,M.P.,Mortensen,T.B,2011.Some immediate but negative effects of openness on product development performance.Technovation31,54-64.
[5]Badawy,M.K.,2011.Discussion:‘Is open innovation a field of study or a communication barrier to theory development?’A perspective.Technovation 31,65-67.
[6]Huizingh,E.,2011.Open innovation:state of the art and future perspectives.Technovation 31,2-9.
[7]West,J.,Bogers,M.,2014.Leveraging external sources of innovation:a review of research on open innovation.J.Prod.Innov.Manag.31,814-831.
[8]Birkinshaw,J.,N.Hood,S.Jonsson.1998.Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations:The role of subsidiary initiative.Strategic Management J.19 221-241.
[9]Chesbrough,H.W,2003.Open Innovation:the new Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology.Harvard Business School Press,Cambridge,MA.
[10]Laursen,K.and Salter,A.,2006,“Open for Innovation:The Role of Openness in Explaining Innovation Performance among UKManufacturing Firms”,Strategic Management Journal,27(2),131-150.
[11]Laursen,K.,Salter,A.,2004.Searching high and low:what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?Res.Policy 33,1201-1215.
[12]Hung,K.P.,Chiang,Y.H.,2010.Open innovation proclivity,entrepreneurial orientation,and perceived firm performance.Int.J.Technol.Manag.52,257-274.
[13]Chiang,Y.H.,Hung,K.P.,2010.Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of interorganizational knowledge flows.R&D Manag.40,292-299.
[14]PisanoG.The R&D boundaries of the firm:an empirical analysis[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35,153-176.
[15]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放式创新:机理与模式[M].北京:科学出版社,2008.
[16]陈钰芬、陈劲:《开放度对企业技术创新绩效的影响》,《科学学研究》,2008年第2期.
[17]Hill,C.W.L.,Rothaermel,F.T.,2003.The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation.Acad.Manag.Rev.28,257-274.
[18]Hsieh,K.N.,Tidd,J.,2012.Open versus closed new service development:the influences of project novelty.Technovation 32,600-608.
[19]Matusik,S.F.,C.W.L.Hill.1998.The utilization of contingent work,knowledge creation,and competitive advantage.Acad.Management Rev.23 680-697.
[20]Miller,D.1987.The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy.Strategic Management J.8,55-76.
[21]Hargadon A B,Bechky B A.When collections of creatives become creative collectives:A field study of problem solving at work[J].Organization Science,2006,17(4):484-500.
[22]von Hippel,E.,1988.The Sources of Innovation.Oxford University Press,New York.
[23]Slater,S.F.,Narver,J.C.,1995.Market orientation and the learning organization.Journal of Marketing,63-74.
[24]Hamel,G.,Doz,Y.L.,Prahalad,C.K.,1989.Collaborate with your competitors and win.Harvard Business Review 67,133-139.
[25]Danneels,E.,2007.The process of technological competence leveraging.Strategic Management Journal 28(5),511-533.
[26]Faems D,De Visser M,Andries P,et al.Technology alliance portfolios and financial performance:Value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2010,27(6):785-796.
[27]张峰、刘侠:外部知识搜寻对创新绩效的作用机理研究,《科学管理》,2014年第1期.
[2]Escribano,A.,Fosfuri,A.,Tribó,J.A.,2009.Managing external knowledge flows:the moderating role of absorptive capacity.Res.Policy 38,96-105.
[3]Sidhu,J.S.,Commandeur,H.R.,lberdVoa,H.W.,2007.The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation:value of supply,demand,and spatial search for innovation.Organ.Sci.18,20-38.
[4]Knudsen,M.P.,Mortensen,T.B,2011.Some immediate but negative effects of openness on product development performance.Technovation31,54-64.
[5]Badawy,M.K.,2011.Discussion:‘Is open innovation a field of study or a communication barrier to theory development?’A perspective.Technovation 31,65-67.
[6]Huizingh,E.,2011.Open innovation:state of the art and future perspectives.Technovation 31,2-9.
[7]West,J.,Bogers,M.,2014.Leveraging external sources of innovation:a review of research on open innovation.J.Prod.Innov.Manag.31,814-831.
[8]Birkinshaw,J.,N.Hood,S.Jonsson.1998.Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations:The role of subsidiary initiative.Strategic Management J.19 221-241.
[9]Chesbrough,H.W,2003.Open Innovation:the new Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology.Harvard Business School Press,Cambridge,MA.
[10]Laursen,K.and Salter,A.,2006,“Open for Innovation:The Role of Openness in Explaining Innovation Performance among UKManufacturing Firms”,Strategic Management Journal,27(2),131-150.
[11]Laursen,K.,Salter,A.,2004.Searching high and low:what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?Res.Policy 33,1201-1215.
[12]Hung,K.P.,Chiang,Y.H.,2010.Open innovation proclivity,entrepreneurial orientation,and perceived firm performance.Int.J.Technol.Manag.52,257-274.
[13]Chiang,Y.H.,Hung,K.P.,2010.Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of interorganizational knowledge flows.R&D Manag.40,292-299.
[14]PisanoG.The R&D boundaries of the firm:an empirical analysis[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35,153-176.
[15]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放式创新:机理与模式[M].北京:科学出版社,2008.
[16]陈钰芬、陈劲:《开放度对企业技术创新绩效的影响》,《科学学研究》,2008年第2期.
[17]Hill,C.W.L.,Rothaermel,F.T.,2003.The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation.Acad.Manag.Rev.28,257-274.
[18]Hsieh,K.N.,Tidd,J.,2012.Open versus closed new service development:the influences of project novelty.Technovation 32,600-608.
[19]Matusik,S.F.,C.W.L.Hill.1998.The utilization of contingent work,knowledge creation,and competitive advantage.Acad.Management Rev.23 680-697.
[20]Miller,D.1987.The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy.Strategic Management J.8,55-76.
[21]Hargadon A B,Bechky B A.When collections of creatives become creative collectives:A field study of problem solving at work[J].Organization Science,2006,17(4):484-500.
[22]von Hippel,E.,1988.The Sources of Innovation.Oxford University Press,New York.
[23]Slater,S.F.,Narver,J.C.,1995.Market orientation and the learning organization.Journal of Marketing,63-74.
[24]Hamel,G.,Doz,Y.L.,Prahalad,C.K.,1989.Collaborate with your competitors and win.Harvard Business Review 67,133-139.
[25]Danneels,E.,2007.The process of technological competence leveraging.Strategic Management Journal 28(5),511-533.
[26]Faems D,De Visser M,Andries P,et al.Technology alliance portfolios and financial performance:Value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2010,27(6):785-796.
[27]张峰、刘侠:外部知识搜寻对创新绩效的作用机理研究,《科学管理》,2014年第1期.