Product novelty and intrinsic characteristics of resources in innovation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17561/ree.n1.2023.7097Keywords:
resources, recombinations, novelty, products, innovationAbstract
In general, the literature on recombinant innovation is unspecific about the novelty achieved when developing products: it results from recombinations, always novel, of existing knowledge. This view limits the types of recombinations and resources used when innovating. It would not explain the diversity of resources and recombinations associated with high, medium, and low product novelty. This paper investigates which intrinsic or constitutive characteristics of resources would facilitate less or more novel recombinations and why this would occur. The construction of explanatory typologies as a theoretical tool was the chosen methodology. The resulting typology of intrinsic characteristics states the literature focuses on existing resources likely associated with low novelty recombinations and products. A high novelty would require intrinsic characteristics facilitating the recombination of tangible resources and knowledge to form new resources. Though, the most frequent intrinsic characteristics promote medium novelty recombinations and products. With the typology, companies could evaluate ex ante the innovative potential of their resources and, thus, the novelty of recombinations and products they would facilitate. It also contributes to the literature by proposing that resources are more than existing knowledge and are intrinsically heterogeneous. Tangible resources would also be essential to create novelty. In this regard, recombinations would not always be novel. There would be specific relationships between types of resources and the novelty of recombinations and products. Theoretical propositions and a formal model suggest the possibility of predicting and quantifying these relationships.
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
Alvarenga, R. (2016). Study of factors contributors to death of micro and small companies in the State of Maranhão. International Journal of Innovation, 4(2), 106–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.5585/iji.v4i2.36
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/jrespol.2006.11.005
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. The Free Press.
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 (pp. 1403–1405). 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://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00906.x
Buchanan, M. (2015). Innovation slowdown. Nature Physics, 11, 2. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3222
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. https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v9i3.19958
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 (pp. 123–152). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203982259
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. http://dx.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. http://dx.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
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
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
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/10.2307/258704
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: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
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 (pp. 1403–1405). Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139021173
Galunic, D. C., y Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1193–1201. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(1998120)19:12<1193::AID-SMJ5>3.0.CO;2-F
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/10.1016/S0737-6782(01)00132-1
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
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.
Henderson, R. M., y Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393549
Jaccard, J., y Jacoby, J. (2020). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., y Lundvall, B. A. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, pp.680–693. https://doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006
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 (pp. 275–306). National Academy of Sciences. https://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
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 (pp. 519–521). Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2
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. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0116
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
McGregor, S. L. T. (2018). Understanding and evaluating research: A critical guide. Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781071802656
Mets, T, Trabskaja, J., y Raudsaar, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial journey of venture creation: reshaping process and space. Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Segunda época, 1, 61–77. https://dx.doi.org/10.17561/ree.v2019n1.4
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., y Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2015.975966
Morero, A. H., Borrastero, C., y Motta, J. J. (2015). Procesos de innovación en la producción de software en Argentina. Un estudio de caso. Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Segunda época, 2, 24–48. https://dx.doi.org/10.17561/ree.v0i2.2739
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
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. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-576-1-371
Platero Jaime, M. (2015). Revisión y adaptación del concepto “innovación” al contexto empresarial español. Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Segunda época, 2, 5–23. https://doi.org/10.17561/ree.v0i2.2737
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. https://doi.org/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. http://dx.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
Thomke, S. H. (1998). Managing experimentation in the design of new products. Management Science, 44(6), 743–762.
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606
Warnier, V., Weppe, X., y Lecocq, X. (2013). Extending resource–based theory: Considering strategic, ordinary and junk resources. Management Decision, 51(7), 1359–1379. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2012-0392
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/10.2307/258554
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
Zeppini, P., y Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2013). Optimal diversity in investments with recombinant innovation. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 24(1), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2012.09.002
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Universidad de Jaén
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors maintain the copyright, but they guarantee the journal its right for publication, that is under Creative Commons Licence, permitting others share the work, whereas clearly indicating the author and the first publication of the journal.
- Authors could adopt non-exclusive licence agreements for delivering the published version, whereas clearly indicating the first publishing in Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Second Era.
- Authors are encouraged to spread their works through Internet before and during the sending process, in order to make interesting scientific discussions that could increase the cites of the published work (Open Citation Project).
Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Second Era, uses PKP Preservation Network (PN).
