The link between non‐technological innovations and technological innovation

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to provide evidence of the major role of non‐technological activities in the innovation process. It seeks to highlight the effects of marketing and organizational innovation strategies on technological innovation performance.Design/methodology/approachThe paper tests theoretical hypotheses on a sample of 555 firms of the Fourth Community Innovation Survey (CIS 4) in 2006 in Luxembourg. Data are analyzed through a generalized Tobit model.FindingsEvidence is found to support the impact of innovation in the marketing and organization fields on a firm's capacity to innovate, but not on the innovative performance. The paper also statistically shows that the effects of non‐technological innovation differ depending on the phase of the innovation process.Research limitations/implicationsThe causal link and the question of time frame between the various innovations could be further investigated, especially through longitudinal studies. Further research should also focus on the differences between large versus small firms, and service versus industrial firms.Practical implicationsThe effects of non‐technological innovation are not the same according to whether the firm is in the first step of the innovation process (i.e. being innovative), or in a later step (i.e. innovative performance). Managers should be aware of these various effects in order to efficiently adopt non‐technological innovation strategies.Originality/valueFew works have taken into account the role of other innovative strategies such as marketing and organization. As far as is known, this is the first study based on recent CIS data that looks at the interrelations between different types of innovation.

Management innovation, pro-innovation organisational culture and enterprise performance: testing the mediation effect

“…Management innovation (MI) is commonly perceived as generating and implementing meaningfully new solutions concerning processes, rules, methods and structures in the management of an organisation, which have a significant impact on how an organisation's goals are pursued (Birkinshaw et al 2008) and, potentially, improve its long-term performance (Mothe 2010). A number of definitions are discussed, among others, by Volberda et al (2013).…”

“…They refer to, for example, organisational innovation (Rahimi et al 2011), administrative innovation (Tanninen et al 2008;Damanpour and Aravind 2011), non-technological innovation (Mothe and Thi 2010), or soft innovation (Den Hertog et al 2006).…”

“…as organisational innovation (Crossan and Apaydin 2010); • MI definitions according to different authors seem to draw on a commonly accepted definition from Birkinshaw et al (2008); according to these authors, management innovation means the invention and implementation of a novel management practice, process, structure, or technique; such innovations should aim to improve a firm's performance (Vaccaro et al 2012;Mothe and Thi 2010); • MIs are meaningfully new solutions, i.e. they have not been implemented in a particular enterprise; they can be adapted (e.g.…”

The Individual’s Influence on Low-Technology Innovation: A Critical Realism Based Case Study on North-West Pakistan’s Marble Sector

“…However, the influence of these innovations on firm's innovation performance (firms actually innovating and profiting from innovation) was not found (Mothe & Thi, 2010). Evangelista and Vezzani (2010) have a different conclusion.…”

Innovation and the performance of Portuguese businesses: a 'SURE' approach

“…traditional industrial vs. technology-based services) and locations (rural vs. urban; metropolitan vs. more peripheral regions) and on innovation processes in firms within specific clusters and firms in successive links of the value chain. (Mothe and Thi, 2010).…”