Extrinsic and intrinsic characteristics of resources and novelty of recombinations
Keywords:
resources, recombinations, novelty, innovationAbstract
The paper covers an area that has been little explored in the literature, such as resources in product innovation. It argues that the literature on recombinant innovation assumes homogeneity in resources (it considers only knowledge) and recombinations (it does not state what level of novelty they reach). Thus, it does not explain possible specific relationships between these constructs. On the contrary, for the article, resources would have different intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics that would influence in a variable way the novelty of recombinations. It inquiries about these types of characteristics and the reason their influence would vary. The methodology involved constructing two explanatory typologies based on a critical literature analysis. The typologies show possible specific relationships of the different levels of recombination novelty with 1) extrinsic characteristics; and 2) with the interaction of extrinsic and intrinsic characteristics. The paper presents propositions and a formal model for measuring these resource characteristics and their effect on novelty. Theoretically, the results would redefine the homogeneous view of the literature: 1) knowledge would not be the only important resource. Tangible resources would be fundamental to develop high novelty, 2) resources (tangible and knowledge) would be heterogeneous and multidimensional, 3) recombinations would have variable novelty, and 4) the resource-novelty relationships of recombinations would be specific and of different types (with the medium novelty producing ones as predominant). For management, the results would contribute to reducing the uncertainty of SMEs about the novelty resulting from recombinations. Thus, efficiency and effectiveness in developing new products may increase.
Downloads
References
Ahuja, G., y Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521-543. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.176
Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., y Tandon, V. (2008). Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management research on the determinants of technological innovation. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 1–98. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211446
Arthur, W. B., y Polak, W. (2006). The evolution of technology within a simple computer model. Complexity, 11(5), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20130
Arthur, W. B. (2007). The structure of invention. Research Policy, 36, 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.11.005
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Penguin Group.
Arts, S., y Veugelers. R. (2015). Technology familiarity, recombinant novelty, and breakthrough invention. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(6), 1215–1246. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtu029
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.
Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. Sage.
Barton, A. H. (1955). The concepts of property-space in social research. En P. F. Lazarsfeld, y M. Rosenberg (Eds.), The language of social research: A reader in the methodology of social research. The Free Press.
Bradley, S. W., Sheperd, D. A., y Wiklund, J. (2011). The importance of slack for new organizations facing ‘tough’ environments. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 1071–1097. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00906.x
Burns, R. W. (2000). John Logie Baird. TV pioneer. The Institution of Engineering and Technology.
Camani, J. P. (2021). The role of resources in recombinations and the degree of novelty of products. International Journal of Innovation, 9(3), 522 –556.
Camani, J. P. (2022) (en prensa). Novedad de productos y características intrínsecas de los recursos en la innovación. Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Segunda Época.
Camio, M. I., Romero, M. C; y Álvarez, M. B. (2017). Capacidades de aprendizaje organizacional. Un estudio en las empresas de software argentinas. Revista Pymes, Innovación y Desarrollo, 5(3), 67–92.
Christensen, J. F. (1996). Innovative assets and inter-asset linkages: A resource-based approach to innovation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4(3), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599600000009
Christensen, J. F. (2000). Building innovate assets and dynamic coherence in multi-technology companies. En N. J. Foss y P. L. Robertson (Eds.), Resource, technology and strategy: Explorations in the resource-based perspective.
Collier, D.; LaPorte, J., y Seawright, J. (2012). Putting typologies to work: Concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912437162
Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Editor´s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a
boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0196
Cornelissen, J. P., y Durand, R. (2014). Moving forward: Developing theoretical contributions in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 51(6), 995–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12078
Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.275
de Carvalho, G. D. G., da Silva, E. D., de Carvalho, H. G., Cavalcante, M. B., y Cruz, J. A. (2017). Brazilian SMEs’ innovation strategies: Agro-industry, construction and retail. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 14(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2017.087097
Delbridge, R., y Fiss, P. C. (2013). Editor´s comment: Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0085
Denrell, J., Fang, C., y Winter, S. G. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.341
D'Este, P., Marzucchi, A., y Rentocchini, F. (2017). Exploring and yet failing less: Learning from past and current exploration in R&D. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(3), 525–553. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtx044
De Vita, G., Tekaya, A., y Wang, C. L. (2011). The many faces of asset specificity: A critical review of key theoretical perspectives. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00294.x
Dierickx, I. y Cool, K. (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of
competitive advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504–1511. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504
Donaldson, L., Qiu, J., y Luo, B. N. (2013). For rigour in organizational management theory research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01069.x
Dosi, G., (1988). Sources, procedures and microeconomis effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 1120–1171.
Doty, D. H., y Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. The Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410210748
Dul, J. (2016). Necessary condition analysis (NCA): Logic and methodology of ‘‘necessary but not sufficient’’ causality. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1) 10–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115584005
Elman, C. (2005) Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of International Politics. International Organization, 59(2), 293–326. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050101
Elsban, K. D., y Van Knippenberg, D. (2020). Creating high-impact literature reviews: An argument for ‘integrative reviews’. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1277–1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12581
Eppler, M.J., Hoffmann, F., y Pfister, R. (2011). Rigor and relevance in management typologies: Assessing the quality of qualitative classifications (mcm Working paper No 1/2011). mcm institute, University of St. Gallen.www.knowledge-communication.org
Echterhoff, N., Amshoff, B., y Gausemeier, J. (2013). Cross–industry innovations–Systematic identification of ideas for radical problem solving. International Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, 7(2), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1083853
Fagerberg, J. (2004). Innovation: a guide to the literature. En J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery y R. Nelson (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of innovation.
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
Fitzgerald, E., Wankerl, A., y Schramm, C. (2011). Inside real innovation: How the right approach can move ideas from R&D to market — and get the economy moving. World Scientific Publishing.
Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.117.10671
Fleming, L., y Giudicati, G. G. (2018). Recombination of knowledge. En M. Augier y D. J. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management.
Forés, B., y Camisón, C. (2016). Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 831–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.006
Foss, N. J., e Ishikawa, I. (2007). Towards a dynamic resource-based view: Insights from Austrian capital and entrepreneurship theory. Organization Studies, 28(5), 749–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607072546
Foss, N. J., y Klein, P. G. (2012). Organizing entrepreneurial judgment: A new approach to the firm. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139021173
Garcia, R., y Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1920110
Gassmann, O., y Zeschky, M. (2008). Opening up the solution space: The role of analogical thinking for breakthrough product innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00475.x
Ghemawat, P., y Del Sol, P. (1998). Commitment versus flexibility? California Management Review, 40(4), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165963
Godin, B. (2017). Models of innovation: The history of an idea. MIT Press.
Greenacre, M., y Primicerio, R. (2013). Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Fundación BBVA.
Hazelgrove, W. (2018). Wright brothers, wrong story: How Wilbur Wright solved the problem of manned flight. Prometheus Books.
Jaccard, J., y Jacoby, J. (2020). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. The Guilford Press.
Kalthaus, M. (2020). Knowledge recombination along the technology lifecycle. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 30(3), 643–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00661-z
Kang, T., Baek, C., y Lee, J. (2019). Effects of knowledge accumulation strategies through experience and experimentation on firm growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.003
Kline, S., y Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. En R. Landau, y N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academy of Sciences. doi.org/10.17226/612
Kok, H.; Faems, D., y de Faria, P. (2019). Dusting off the knowledge shelves: Recombinant lag and the technological value of inventions. Journal of Management, 45(7), 2807–2836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318765926
Kyriakopoulos, K., Hughes, M., y Hughes, P. (2015). The role of marketing resources in radical innovation activity: Antecedents and payoffs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(4), 398–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12285
Lachmann, L. M. (1956). Capital and its Structure. Sheed Andrews and McMeel.
Laursen, K., y Salter, A. J. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovative performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
Lee, L., y Barney, J. B. (2018). Strategic factor markets. En M. Augier y D. J. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management.
Lewin, P. (2011). Capital in desequilibrium: The role of capital in a changing world. Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
Majchrzak, A., Cooper, L. P., y Neece, O. E. (2004). Knowledge reuse for innovation. Management Science, 50(2), 174–188. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1030.0116
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), pp.71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
McGregor, S. L. T. (2018). Understanding and evaluating research: A critical guide. Sage.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., y Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
Mukherjee, S., Uzzi, B., Jones, B., y Stringer, M. (2016). A new method for identifying recombinations of existing knowledge associated with high-impact innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(2), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12294
Nelson, R. R., y Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. The Belknap Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Olson, O., y Frey, B. S. (2001). Entrepreneurship as recombinant growth. Small Business Economics, 19(2), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016261420372
O’Raghallaigh, P., Sammon, D., y Murphy, C. (2010). Theory-building using typologies – A worked example of building a typology of knowledge activities for innovation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 212, 371–382. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-576-1-371
Ortiz, M. F. (2016). La dinámica micro de los procesos de innovación bajo la perspectiva de los propios actores. Revista Pymes, Innovación y Desarrollo, 4(3), 77–101.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Blackwell.
Popadiuk, S., y Choo, C. W. (2006). Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management, 26(4), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.03.011
Savino, T., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., y Albino, V. (2017). Search and recombination process to innovate: A review of the empirical evidence and a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12081
Schneider, C. Q., y Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139004244
Schriber, S., y Löwstedt, J. (2018). Managing asset orchestration: a processual approach to adapting to dynamic environments. Journal of Business Research, 90(9), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.027
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business Cycles. McGraw-Hill.
Si, S., y Chen, H. (2020). A literature review of disruptive innovation: What it is, how it works and where it goes. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 56(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101568
Snow, C. C., y Ketchen, D. J. (2014). Typology-driven theorizing. A response to Delbridge and Fiss. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 231–233. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0388
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Sun, M., y Jiang, H. (2017). Innovating by combining: A process model. Procedia Engineering, 174(5), 595-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.193
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences. The Free Press.
Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 331–360. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355398555595
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371
Youn, H., Strumsky, D., Bettencourt, L. M. A., y Lobo, J. (2015). Invention as a combinatorial process: Evidence from US patents. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 12(106), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0272
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Juan Pablo Camani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
