IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v74-75y2018ip54-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relationships among open innovation, innovative performance, government support and firm size: Comparing Brazilian firms embracing different levels of radicalism in innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Jugend, Daniel
  • Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappeta
  • Alves Scaliza, Janaina A.
  • Rocha, Robson Sø
  • Junior, José Alcides Gobbo
  • Latan, Hengky
  • Salgado, Manoel Henrique

Abstract

This work extends knowledge concerning the relationships among open innovation, innovative performance and government support for innovation within Brazilian firms. Data were obtained from two different firm samples (Sample A, on incremental innovation, and Sample B, on radical innovation). The main research results are as follows. First, in considering government support for innovation, Sample B, based on radical innovation, played a superior and stronger role than Sample A. Secondly, for both samples, the cooperation of external firms has a positive effect on firms’ innovative performance, which was positively controlled by the size of the firms. Thirdly, in general, radical innovation requires synergy and a more intense focus regarding the constructs considered therein. This work also adds value in methodological terms, as this is the first research to have tested different models of samples with different levels of radicalism in innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Jugend, Daniel & Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappeta & Alves Scaliza, Janaina A. & Rocha, Robson Sø & Junior, José Alcides Gobbo & Latan, Hengky & Salgado, Manoel Henrique, 2018. "Relationships among open innovation, innovative performance, government support and firm size: Comparing Brazilian firms embracing different levels of radicalism in innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 74, pages 54-65.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:74-75:y:2018:i::p:54-65
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497218301147
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.004?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. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    2. Stam, Wouter, 2009. "When does community participation enhance the performance of open source software companies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1288-1299, October.
    3. Etzkowitz, Henry & de Mello, Jose Manoel Carvalho & Almeida, Mariza, 2005. "Towards "meta-innovation" in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 411-424, May.
    4. Paul Trott & Dap Hartmann, 2009. "Why 'Open Innovation' Is Old Wine In New Bottles," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(04), pages 715-736.
    5. Gaia Rubera & Deepa Chandrasekaran & Andrea Ordanini, 2016. "Open innovation, product portfolio innovativeness and firm performance: the dual role of new product development capabilities," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 166-184, March.
    6. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    7. Ikujiro Nonaka & Georg von Krogh, 2009. "Perspective---Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 635-652, June.
    8. Ray E. Reagans & Ezra W. Zuckerman, 2008. "Why knowledge does not equal power: the network redundancy trade-off," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(5), pages 903-944, October.
    9. Marcel Bogers & Ann-Kristin Zobel & Allan Afuah & Esteve Almirall & Sabine Brunswicker & Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Annabelle Gawer & Marc Gruber & Stefan Haefliger & John Hagedoorn & Dennis, 2017. "The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 8-40, January.
    10. Scott A. Shane & Karl T. Ulrich, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Technological Innovation, Product Development, and Entrepreneurship in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 133-144, February.
    11. Adelheid Holl & Ruth Rama, 2012. "Technology sourcing: Are biotechnology firms different? An exploratory study of the Spanish case," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 304-317, April.
    12. Goedhuys, Micheline & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2012. "Innovation strategies, process and product innovations and growth: Firm-level evidence from Brazil," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 516-529.
    13. Annalisa Caloffi & Federica Rossi & Margherita Russo, 2015. "What Makes SMEs more Likely to Collaborate? Analysing the Role of Regional Innovation Policy," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7), pages 1245-1264, July.
    14. John Hauser & Gerard J. Tellis & Abbie Griffin, 2006. "Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 687-717, 11-12.
    15. 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.
    16. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 1998. "The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 195-203, June.
    17. Love, James H. & Roper, Stephen & Bryson, John R., 2011. "Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1438-1452.
    18. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    19. Marcelo Cano-Kollmann & Robert D. HamiltonIII & Ram Mudambi, 2017. "Public support for innovation and the openness of firms’ innovation activities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(3), pages 421-442.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    2. Lopes, Ana Paula Vilas Boas Viveiros & de Carvalho, Marly Monteiro, 2018. "Evolution of the open innovation paradigm: Towards a contingent conceptual model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 284-298.
    3. Mei, Liang & Zhang, Tao & Chen, Jin, 2019. "Exploring the effects of inter-firm linkages on SMEs' open innovation from an ecosystem perspective: An empirical study of Chinese manufacturing SMEs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 118-128.
    4. Roman Teplov & Ekaterina Albats & Daria Podmetina, 2019. "What Does Open Innovation Mean? Business Versus Academic Perceptions," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(01), pages 1-33, January.
    5. Jane Webb, 2017. "Keeping Alive Inter-Organisational Innovation Through Identity Work And Play," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(05), pages 1-22, June.
    6. Torres de Oliveira, Rui & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Steen, John & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Creating value by giving away: A typology of different innovation revealing strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 137-150.
    7. Idika Awa Uduma & Andy Fred Wali & Len Tiu Wright, 2015. "A quantitative study on the influence of breadth of open innovation on SMEs product-service performance: The moderating effect of type of innovation," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1120421-112, December.
    8. Martie-Louise Verreynne & Rui Torres de Oliveira & John Steen & Marta Indulska & Jerad A. Ford, 2020. "What motivates ‘free’ revealing? Measuring outbound non-pecuniary openness, innovation types and expectations of future profit growth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 271-301, July.
    9. Shalom Levy & Itzhak Tabatchnik & Sagi Akron, 2019. "Product success implications of distant innovative knowledge," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(1), pages 69-88, March.
    10. El Maalouf, Nicole & Bahemia, Hanna, 2023. "The implementation of inbound open innovation at the firm level: A dynamic capability perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    11. Leon, Ramona – Diana & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Raúl & Gómez-Gasquet, Pedro & Mula, Josefa, 2017. "Social network analysis: A tool for evaluating and predicting future knowledge flows from an insurance organization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 103-118.
    12. Barrett, Gillian & Tsekouras, George, 2022. "A tango with a gorilla: An exploration of the microfoundations of open innovation partnerships between young innovative companies and multi-national enterprises," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Owusu Sarpong & Peter Teirlinck, 2018. "The influence of functional and geographical diversity in collaboration on product innovation performance in SMEs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1667-1695, December.
    14. Jiao, Hao & Zhou, Jianghua & Gao, Taishan & Liu, Xielin, 2016. "The more interactions the better? The moderating effect of the interaction between local producers and users of knowledge on the relationship between R&D investment and regional innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 13-20.
    15. Roland Helm & Herbert Endres & Stefan Hüsig, 2019. "When and how often to externally commercialize technologies? a critical review of outbound open innovation," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 327-345, April.
    16. Brea, Edgar & Ford, Jerad A., 2023. "No silver bullet: Cognitive technology does not lead to novelty in all firms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    17. Albats, Ekaterina & Alexander, Allen & Mahdad, Maral & Miller, Kristel & Post, Ger, 2020. "Stakeholder management in SME open innovation: interdependences and strategic actions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 291-301.
    18. Kibaek Lee & Jaeheung Yoo & Munkee Choi & Hangjung Zo & Andrew P Ciganek, 2016. "Does External Knowledge Sourcing Enhance Market Performance? Evidence from the Korean Manufacturing Industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    19. Lirios Alos-Simo & Antonio J. Verdu-Jover & Jose M. Gomez-Gras, 2020. "Knowledge Transfer in Sustainable Contexts: A Comparative Analysis of Periods of Financial Recession and Expansion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-24, June.
    20. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.

    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:techno:v:74-75:y:2018:i::p:54-65. 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/01664972 .

    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.