Effect of exploitation and exploration on the innovative as outcomes in entrepreneurial firms

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to establish the effect of the Exploitation and Exploration; and the influence of these learning flows on the Innovative Outcome (IO). The Innovative Outcome refers to new products, services, processes (or improvements) that the organization has obtained as a result of an innovative process. For this purpose, a relationship model is defined, which is empirically contrasted, and can explains and predicts the cyclical dynamization of learning flows on innovative outcome in knowledge intensive firms. The quantitative test for this model use the data from entrepreneurial firms biotechnology sector. The statistical analysis applies a method based on variance using Partial Least Squares (PLS). Research results confirm the hypotheses, that is, they show a positive dynamic effect between the Exploration and the Innovative as outcomes. In the same vein, they results confirm the presence of the cyclic movement of innovative outcome with the Exploitation.

An Overview of Ecopreneurship, Eco-Innovation, and the Ecological Sector

“…Eco-innovation is a key element because it increases value for both producers and consumers while reducing negative impacts on the environment [73]. In a global context, where change is increasing and innovation is disruptive [74], sources of competitive advantage must be created [75], and differentiation strategies must be developed through eco-innovation. Investment in eco-innovation enables firms not only to gain a privileged market position but also to maintain this position in the long term.…”

Innovative outcome through exploration and exploitation – Enablers, barriers and industrial property

“…The value of innovative processes focusing on exploration and exploitation processes to obtain an innovative outcome (IO) has been studied. IO has been defined as new products, services or processes (or improvements) that the organisation has obtained as a result of an innovative process (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Vargas et al , 2018). Some empirical studies have shown that firms that explore generate new and more innovative technologies in the long term but infrequently (Greve, 2007).…”

“…Secondly, other works propose theoretical models that are original but which, in the end, are not empirically contrasted in quantitative or qualitative studies. Thus, this area remains a topic of interest in research (Katila and Chen, 2008; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Teece, 2012; Vargas et al , 2018; Wilden et al , 2018). In this paper, then, we empirically test our new model in a quantitative study with significant conclusions.…”

“…However, we are more specific, and we work with a new variable called IO. (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Vargas et al , 2018).…”

Measuring the Sustainable Entrepreneurial Performance of Textile-Based Small–Medium Enterprises: A Mediation–Moderation Model

“…Prior studies illustrated that innovation and innovative capability (IC) are also related to SEP [35]. The linkage of inner capacity with abilities that comes with something new is known as IC-IC is directly correlated with the nature of SEP [35]. The IC of an individual comes in the form of entrepreneurship.…”