Caroline Mothe

The link between non‐technological innovations and technological innovation

Purpose This paper aims to provide evidence of the major role of non-technological activities in the innovation process. It highlights the effects of marketing and organizational innovation strategies on technological innovation performance. Design/methodology/approach The article tests theoretical hypotheses on a sample of 555 firms of the 4th Community Innovation Survey (CIS 4) in 2006 in Luxembourg. Data are analyzed through a generalizedTobit model. Findings In the present study, evidence is found to support the impact of innovation in the marketing and organization fields on a firms capacity to innovate, but not on the innovative performance. The paper also statistically shows that the effects of non-technological innovation differ depending on the phase of the innovation process. Research limitations/implications The causal link and the question of time frame between the various innovations could be further investigated, especially through longitudinal studies. Further research should also focus on the differences between large versus small firms, and service versus industrial firms. Practical implications The effects of non-technological innovation are not the same according to whether the firm is in the first step of the innovation process (i.e. being innovative), or in a later step (i.e. innovative performance). Managers should be aware of these various effects in order to efficiently adopt non-technological innovation strategies. Originality/value Few works have taken into account the role of other innovative strategies such as marketing and organization. At our knowledge, this is the first study based on recent CIS data that looks at the interrelations between different types of innovation.

Non-technological and technological innovations: do services differ from manufacturing? An empirical analysis of Luxembourg firms

The literature on innovation highlights the interactive nature of the innovation process in which non-technological activities are essential. However, few works have taken into account the role of other innovative strategies such as marketing and organisational innovations. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to fill this gap. For the empirical work, we used firm-level data drawn from the Community Innovation Survey 2006 for Luxembourg. We find that the effects of non-technological innovations differ depending on the phase of the innovation process. Marketing and organisational innovations significantly increase the likelihood of innovation, but not the commercial success of innovation. The study also shows the differentiated effects of the two types of non-technological innovation in manufacturing and service firms.

Resource creation and partnership in R&D consortia

In this article, we examine, through an analysis of characteristics specific to both the partner firm and the consortium, the process of creating new resources and competencies in research and development (RD we attempt here to fulfill the insufficiencies in empirical analysis. Since we are interested in how individual participating companies succeed in creating resources, our research is focused on the partner firm itself and not on the consortium as a whole. Our statistical analysis of 317 firms enables us to examine the different types of technological developments that can be achieved through EUREKA R&D consortia. We study the impact that partner characteristics and the choice of a consortiums organizational form can have on the types of resources created by a partner. Our findings, which detail the factors that affect the creation of competencies in R&D consortia, strongly support the resource-based theory of the firm

Knowledge governance within clusters: the case of small firms

Despite the vast literature on knowledge management, little research has addressed the specificities of knowledge integration at the cluster level. Moreover, the literature on clusters has not focused on the role that governance may play in knowledge management. Anchored in a knowledge-based perspective, this paper aims at bridging the two fields, filling the gap by analysing the role of cluster governance in knowledge management. An empirical study of two small French firm clusters was carried out based on 29 interviews. The data analysis consisted essentially in content analysis. The clusters studied were characterized by distinct knowledge management processes. In both cases, governance was necessary in order to support knowledge integration by member firms. Our results suggest that establishing an initial common knowledge base seems to be a prerequisite in order for the external knowledge identification and acquisition processes to take place. The activist role played by governance also seems more efficient than that of a broker. We discuss these results and their implications for policy-makers and cluster members.

THE IMPACT OF ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT AND COMPETENCES ON INNOVATION AMBIDEXTERITY

Research into organisation theory contains abundant evidence of the positive effects of ambidexterity on a firms performance, and of the influence of organisational context on ambidexterity. The present research tests whether organisational context affects innovation ambidexterity. Our results, based on a dataset of 108 large innovative firms, show that firms combining exploration innovation and exploitation innovation should adopt long-term practices that favour risk-taking and creativity, and thereby build an organisational context suited to innovation ambidexterity. Competences were found to have a strong moderating effect. These results have important managerial and theoretical implications. In the case of innovation, firms that simultaneously pursue exploitation and exploration activities should carefully consider how they combine competences and organisational context.

The Dynamics of Coordination in Innovation Networks

Despite abundant literature dedicated to networks and coordination, few empirical studies address the internal operations of inter-organizational networks. This research therefore aims to characterize coordination mechanisms of various forms and analyse their evolution through an empirical analysis of six innovation networks. A comparative case study approach examines how three main dimensions (dependency, prior business relations, and type of conflict) influence the type of coordination adopted by a hub firm, as well as its evolution. Each case serves as a distinct experiment that stands on its own as an analytic unit. The six cases thus are discrete experiments that serve as replications and contrasts. The study reveals a negative effect of a singular reliance on trust. Indirect guarantees need to combine with direct guarantees to facilitate hub firm dependence. Moreover, the coordination modes and the use of hard conflict resolution mechanisms vary with the type of conflict (i.e., project or behavioural). These findings have key implications for research and practice.

The differentiated impacts of organizational innovation practices on technological innovation persistence

This article tests the major determinants of technological (product and process) innovation persistence and provides evidence of the significant role of organizational innovation. Design/methodology/approach Data came from two waves of the Luxembourg Community Innovation Survey (CIS): CIS2006 for 2004–2006 and CIS2008 for 2006–2008. The longitudinal data set resulted in a final sample of 287 firms. A multinomial probit model estimates the likelihood that each firm belongs to one of three longitudinal innovation profiles: no, sporadic, or persistent innovators. Findings The determinants have differentiated impacts on process and technological innovation persistence. Organizational innovation influences technological innovation persistence. In the analysis of detailed organizational practices, strong evidence emerged that knowledge management exerts a crucial effect on product innovation persistence; workplace organization instead is associated with process innovation persistence.

Firm persistence in technological innovation: the relevance of organizational innovation

Organizational innovation favors technological innovation, but does it also influence persistence in technological innovation? This paper empirically investigates the pattern of technological innovation persistence and tests the potential impact of organizational innovation using firm-level data from three waves of French Community Innovation Surveys. The evidence indicates a positive effect of organizational innovation on persistence in technological innovation, according to the various measures of organizational innovation. Moreover, this impact is more significant for complex innovators, i.e. those who innovate in both products and processes. The results highlight the complexity of managing organizational practices with regard to the technological innovation of firms. They also add to understanding of the drivers of innovation persistence through the focus on an often forgotten dimension of innovation in a broader sense.

Technological innovation persistence : Literature survey and exploration of the role of organizational innovation

In this paper, we will review the literature on technological innovation persistence and provide a general theoretical framework to analyze the main determinants of this innovative behavior. Moreover, no previous empirical study has taken into account organizational innovation practices as possible determinants of innovation persistence. We will therefore include them, as previous studies have shown the interaction effects between the two types of innovation, and produce empirical results on technical innovation persistence. A multinomial probit model was used to estimate the likelihood of belonging to each of the three longitudinal innovation profiles. Results confirm the differentiated impact of determinants on process and technological innovation persistence, and the effect of R&D intensity, R&D cooperation and competition intensity. As hypothesized, we also found that organizational innovation is a determinant factor for innovation persistence and, more generally speaking, for technological innovation, in particular organizational practices such as knowledge management and external partnerships.

Can a governance structure foster cluster ambidexterity through knowledge management? An empirical study of two French SME clusters

To identify how a governance structure leads to ambidexterity at the cluster level, in terms of knowledge management, this study draws on the knowledge -based view of clusters and on ambidexterity literature, thereby exploring an ‘intermediated’ cluster model of ambidexterity. Our aim is to explore the governance structure’s role and priorities in terms of knowledge management, as well as the underlying operational actions and programmes implemented to achieve cluster ambidexterity. Qualitative research, based on interviews with members of two French clusters, reveals that their governance structure is a crucial intermediary organisation that supports cluster ambidexterity. The results emphasise the role of governance structures for two types of ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) clusters: First, SMEs may specialise in exploitative or exploratory knowledge, and the governance structure provides the missing knowledge (intermediated specialised model). Second, cluster governance may help each firm become ambidextrous (intermediated dual model). This study outlines the specificities of the two models and their contingency factors, which offer interesting implications, especially for policymakers devoted to innovation and clusters.