IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v181y2022ics0040162522002736.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining the expansion performance in technological capability of participants in megaprojects: A configurational approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jin, Zhizhou
  • Zeng, Saixing
  • Chen, Hongquan
  • Shi, Jonathan Jingsheng

Abstract

Megaprojects are considered to be platforms providing participants with potential opportunities for technological innovation and capability development, but it is unclear which participants can benefit more from them and how. Taking the expansion performance in technological capability as the specific objective, this paper seeks to investigate what combination of antecedent conditions can enable participants in megaprojects to achieve high performance. Applying fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to the sample of main participating companies in the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge project, we find that megaprojects do not automatically lead to a significant expansion in technological capability of participants, and no single condition is sufficient in isolation or absolutely necessary for high performance. We uncover three pathways to high expansion performance, among which the conditions show relationships of complementarity and substitutability. This study enhances the theoretical understanding of the process of megaprojects promoting participants’ growth, and offers new insights into the complex causality of performance differences in capability development.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin, Zhizhou & Zeng, Saixing & Chen, Hongquan & Shi, Jonathan Jingsheng, 2022. "Explaining the expansion performance in technological capability of participants in megaprojects: A configurational approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:181:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522002736
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522002736
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121747?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guan, Jiancheng & Liu, Na, 2016. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 97-112.
    2. Bohnsack, René & Kurtz, Hannes & Hanelt, André, 2021. "Re-examining path dependence in the digital age: The evolution of connected car business models," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    3. Kamini Gupta & Donal Crilly & Thomas Greckhamer, 2020. "Stakeholder engagement strategies, national institutions, and firm performance: A configurational perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(10), pages 1869-1900, October.
    4. Sharon A. Alvarez & Jay B. Barney & Philip Anderson, 2013. "Forming and Exploiting Opportunities: The Implications of Discovery and Creation Processes for Entrepreneurial and Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 301-317, February.
    5. Xie, Xuemei & Wang, Hongwei, 2020. "How can open innovation ecosystem modes push product innovation forward? An fsQCA analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 29-41.
    6. Gerard George & Reddi Kotha & Yanfeng Zheng, 2008. "Entry into Insular Domains: A Longitudinal Study of Knowledge Structuration and Innovation in Biotechnology Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1448-1474, December.
    7. Giovanni Dosi & Sébastien Lechevalier & Angelo Secchi, 2010. "Interfirm heterogeneity: nature, sources and consequences for industrial dynamics. An introduction," Post-Print hal-00642680, HAL.
    8. Carmona-Lavado, Antonio & Cuevas-Rodríguez, Gloria & Cabello-Medina, Carmen & Fedriani, Eugenio M., 2021. "Does open innovation always work? The role of complementary assets," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    9. Mata, José & Woerter, Martin, 2013. "Risky innovation: The impact of internal and external R&D strategies upon the distribution of returns," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 495-501.
    10. Thrane, Sof & Blaabjerg, Steen & Møller, Rasmus Hannemann, 2010. "Innovative path dependence: Making sense of product and service innovation in path dependent innovation processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 932-944, September.
    11. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & van den Oord, Ad, 2008. "Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1717-1731, December.
    12. Martin R Schneider & Conrad Schulze-Bentrop & Mihai Paunescu, 2010. "Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 41(2), pages 246-266, February.
    13. Boris Lokshin & René Belderbos & Martin Carree, 2008. "The Productivity Effects of Internal and External R&D: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Data Model," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(3), pages 399-413, June.
    14. Giovanni Dosi & Sébastien Lechevalier & Angelo Secchi, 2010. "Introduction: Interfirm heterogeneity--nature, sources and consequences for industrial dynamics," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(6), pages 1867-1890, December.
    15. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    16. Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226702773, September.
    17. Kang, Taewon & Baek, Chulwoo & Lee, Jeong-Dong, 2017. "The persistency and volatility of the firm R&D investment: Revisited from the perspective of technological capability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1570-1579.
    18. Ozgen, Eren & Baron, Robert A., 2007. "Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 174-192, March.
    19. Leroy White & Andy Lockett & Graeme Currie & James Hayton, 2021. "Hybrid Context, Management Practices and Organizational Performance: A Configurational Approach," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 718-748, May.
    20. Hansen, Ulrich Elmer & Lema, Rasmus, 2019. "The co-evolution of learning mechanisms and technological capabilities: Lessons from energy technologies in emerging economies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 241-257.
    21. Khedhaouria, Anis & Thurik, Roy, 2017. "Configurational conditions of national innovation capability: A fuzzy set analysis approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 48-58.
    22. Kevin Zheng Zhou & Fang Wu, 2010. "Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 547-561, May.
    23. Michael Howard & H. Kevin Steensma & Marjorie Lyles & Charles Dhanaraj, 2016. "Learning to collaborate through collaboration: How allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(10), pages 2092-2103, October.
    24. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    25. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    26. Zhaohan Sheng, 2018. "Fundamental Theories of Mega Infrastructure Construction Management," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-3-319-61974-3, December.
    27. Martinez-Noya, Andrea & Narula, Rajneesh, 2018. "What more can we learn from R&D alliances? : A review and research agenda," MERIT Working Papers 2018-022, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    28. Thomas Greckhamer, 2016. "CEO compensation in relation to worker compensation across countries: The configurational impact of country-level institutions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 793-815, April.
    29. Douglas, Evan J. & Shepherd, Dean A. & Prentice, Catherine, 2020. "Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis for a finer-grained understanding of entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1).
    30. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    31. Nicholas S. Argyres & Brian S. Silverman, 2004. "R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 929-958, August.
    32. Davide Antonioli & Alberto Marzucchi & Maria Savona, 2017. "Pain shared, pain halved? Cooperation as a coping strategy for innovation barriers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 841-864, August.
    33. Mary Tripsas, 1997. "Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 119-142, July.
    34. Zhaohan Sheng, 2018. "Mega Infrastructure Construction Management," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Fundamental Theories of Mega Infrastructure Construction Management, chapter 0, pages 13-44, Springer.
    35. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Kempkes, Sander N. & Chappin, Maryse M.H., 2017. "Seduced into collaboration: A resource-based choice experiment to explain make, buy or ally strategies of SMEs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 284-297.
    36. Carmen Weigelt, 2009. "The impact of outsourcing new technologies on integrative capabilities and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 595-616, June.
    37. Speldekamp, Daniël & Knoben, Joris & Saka-Helmhout, Ayse, 2020. "Clusters and firm-level innovation: A configurational analysis of agglomeration, network and institutional advantages in European aerospace," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    38. Chang-Yang Lee, 2003. "A simple theory and evidence on the determinants of firm R&D," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(5), pages 385-395.
    39. Un, C. Annique & Rodríguez, Alicia, 2018. "Learning from R&D outsourcing vs. learning by R&D outsourcing," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 72, pages 24-33.
    40. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2006. "In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R& D and External Knowledge Acquisition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 68-82, January.
    41. Gomes, Leonardo Augusto de Vasconcelos & Facin, Ana Lucia Figueiredo & Salerno, Mario Sergio & Ikenami, Rodrigo Kazuo, 2018. "Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 30-48.
    42. James H. Love & Stephen Roper & Priit Vahter, 2014. "Learning from openness: The dynamics of breadth in external innovation linkages," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(11), pages 1703-1716, November.
    43. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226702766 is not listed on IDEAS
    44. Stav Fainshmidt & Michael A Witt & Ruth V Aguilera & Alain Verbeke, 2020. "The contributions of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(4), pages 455-466, June.
    45. Sai Yayavaram & Manish K. Srivastava & MB Sarkar, 2018. "Role of search for domain knowledge and architectural knowledge in alliance partner selection," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 2277-2302, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Medina-Molina, Cayetano & Pérez-Macías, Noemí & Fernández-Fernádez, José Luis, 2023. "The use of micromobility in different contexts. An explanation through the multilevel perspective and QCA," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    2. Zheng, Lu & Ulrich, Klaus & Sendra-García, Javier, 2021. "Qualitative comparative analysis: Configurational paths to innovation performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 83-93.
    3. Papazoglou, Michalis E. & Spanos, Yiannis E., 2018. "Bridging distant technological domains: A longitudinal study of the determinants of breadth of innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1713-1728.
    4. Nidthida Lin, 2020. "Designing Global Sourcing Strategy for Cost Savings and Innovation: A Configurational Approach," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 60(5), pages 723-753, October.
    5. Ning, Lutao & Guo, Rui, 2022. "Technological Diversification to Green Domains: Technological Relatedness, Invention Impact and Knowledge Integration Capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    6. Guo, Wenqian & Lu, Wenxue & Gao, Xinran, 2022. "Exploring configurations of negotiating behaviors in business negotiations: A qualitative comparative analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 435-448.
    7. Filippopoulos, Nikolaos & Fotopoulos, Georgios, 2022. "Innovation in economically developed and lagging European regions: A configurational analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    8. Hong Huo & Quanxi Li, 2022. "Influencing Factors of the Continuous Use of a Knowledge Payment Platform—Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis Based on Triadic Reciprocal Determinism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Slavova, Kremena & Jong, Simcha, 2021. "University alliances and firm exploratory innovation: Evidence from therapeutic product development," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Zhang, Zhengang & Luo, Taiye, 2020. "Network capital, exploitative and exploratory innovations——from the perspective of network dynamics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    11. Luca Berchicci & Nilanjana Dutt & Will Mitchell, 2019. "Knowledge Sources and Operational Problems: Less Now, More Later," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 1030-1053, September.
    12. Zhang, Ningning & You, Dingyi & Tang, Le & Wen, Ke, 2023. "Knowledge path dependence, external connection, and radical inventions: Evidence from Chinese Academy of Sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    13. Kang, Taewon & Baek, Chulwoo & Lee, Jeong-Dong, 2017. "The persistency and volatility of the firm R&D investment: Revisited from the perspective of technological capability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1570-1579.
    14. Chen, Jian-xun & Zhang, Bo & Zhan, Wu & Sharma, Piyush & Budhwar, Pawan & Tan, Hui, 2022. "Demystifying the non-linear effect of high commitment work systems (HCWS) on firms’ strategic intention of exploratory innovation: An extended resource-based view," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    15. Jantunen, Ari & Tarkiainen, Anssi & Chari, Simos & Oghazi, Pejvak, 2018. "Dynamic capabilities, operational changes, and performance outcomes in the media industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 251-257.
    16. Liwen Wang & Jin Jason Lu & Kevin Zhou, 2023. "Technological Capability Strength/Asymmetry and Supply Chain Process Innovation: The Contingent Roles of Institutional Environments in China," Post-Print hal-03954124, HAL.
    17. Anu Wadhwa & Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & M. B. Sarkar, 2017. "The Paradox of Openness and Value Protection Strategies: Effect of Extramural R&D on Innovative Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 873-896, October.
    18. Sarianna M. Lundan & Jiatao Li, 2019. "Adjusting to and learning from institutional diversity: Toward a capability-building perspective," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(1), pages 36-47, February.
    19. Mitchell, J. Robert & Israelsen, Trevor L. & Mitchell, Ronald K. & Lim, Dominic S.K., 2021. "Stakeholder identification as entrepreneurial action: The social process of stakeholder enrollment in new venture emergence," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(6).
    20. Seyedesmaeil Mousavi & Bart Bossink & Mario van Vliet, 2019. "Microfoundations of companies' dynamic capabilities for environmentally sustainable innovation: Case study insights from high‐tech innovation in science‐based companies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 366-387, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:181:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522002736. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.