How Do High, Medium, and Low Tech Firms Innovate? A System of Innovation (Si) Approach

Abstract

Maison d'édition:Publisher:World Scientific URL officiel:Official URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219877012500344 Mention légale:Legal notice:Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, vol. 9, no. 5, 23 pages. doi:10.1142 AbstractIn the past decade, the innovation literature has mainly targeted high-tech (HT) sectors due to their higher return on investment and important role in building new societies and economies. While the high-tech sector is still of a leading importance, whether medium and low tech (LMT) sectors should be equivalently considered when analyzing long term economic growth, in both leading and catching up economies, is a fundamental question. This paper is our second milestone comparing HT and LMT sectors from an innovation perspective, using a National System of Innovation (NSI) approach. The general aim of this paper is to find the main principles that govern the difference between the two industrial segments (HT and LMT) while controlling for supranational boundaries. In order to measure the effect of NSI, countries are divided into two groups: leading and catching up economies. Our results suggest that, with respect to HT, leading economies can be considered as innovators, while catching up economies are the imitators. Furthermore, HT in leading economies relies on product modularity to outsource various components probably to firms in catching up economies. Catching ups are putting greater emphasis on universities to produce knowledge. In addition, firms in catching up economies benefit from high accessibility to funds in order to grow various industrial sectors, especially LMT. The role of institutions and governments with respect to regulatory policies, intellectual property protections are of high importance for firms in catching up economies, especially in LMT. As a result of those important steps, the various agents in catching up economies have achieved sustainable growth, notably in LMT. In contrast, the same growth is observed for HT for firms in leading economies. Our results suggest that catching up countries are strategizing for this sectoral evolution, renewal and transformation process for both sectors, but with a stronger emphasis on LMT.

The Study of the Relationship among GCI, GII, Disruptive Technology, and Social Innovations in MNCs: How Do We Evaluate Financial Innovations Made by Firms? A Preliminary Inquiry

“…At the same time, we intend to suggest some principles for the realization of financial innovation by firms; such principles would also be of theoretical interest in that they would become a starting point for other similar studies. Most studies [43,49] on financial innovation through the use of disruptive technologies refer either to firms in high-tech sectors of the manufacturing industry (pharmaceuticals, ITC, etc.) or to firms in more knowledge-intensive service sectors-KIS (especially in the banking sector, insurance sector, and other fintech start-ups; [36]).…”

An empirical study of desired versus actual compensation practices in determining intrapreneurial behaviour

“…Innovation and intrapreneurship have been emphasised as key-drivers for emerging economy firms to revitalise, reconfigure resources and transform into market-orientated firms that are ready to compete in the global economy (Yiu & Lau 2008). Recent research demonstrates the importance of how 'catching up countries' benefit from innovations in the medium and low technology sectors (Rotaba & Beaudry 2012). Thus far, there has not been much work on intrapreneurship in transition economies and emerging markets, as contrasted with entrepreneurship studies at the individual level.…”

Breaking Mirror for the Customers: The Demand-Side Contingencies of the Mirroring Hypothesis

“…Specifically, management scholars put forth the so-called "mirroring hypothesis," which postulates that the structure of an organization and the architecture of the product it is developing would come to "mirror" each other (Colfer & Baldwin, 2016;Henderson & Clark, 1990;Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996). As a result, many expect product modularity leads to various benefits associated with organizational modularity, such as reduced coordination costs (Padmanabhan & Raghunath, 2020;Raasch, 2011;Srikanth & Puranam, 2011), easier outsourcing or offshoring (Fontana & Prencipe, 2013;Rotaba & Beaudry, 2012;Sako, 2004), and increased organizational flexibility (Hoetker, 2006;Sanchez, 1995;Wang et al, 2004).…”