Towards A Deeper Understanding of the Relationship between Structural Reconfiguration Capacity, Technological and Non-technological innovations, and Firm Performance

Abstract

Small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises, the backbone of the Southeast Asian economy, are struggling to operate and maintain profitable growth in the face of the COVID-19 epidemic. During the recovery process, technological and non-technological innovation is a major factor in enterprise efficiency and profitability. However, it is unclear what drives manufacturing enterprises to innovate in technological and non-technological approaches and how they choose to implement innovation to keep their businesses growing and successful. Therefore, to answer this issue, this research develops and empirically tests a model based on dynamic capabilities and innovative perspectives utilizing World Bank Enterprise Survey data from 789 manufacturing enterprises in Southeast Asian countries. The hierarchical regression model assists create prediction equations to test technological and non-technological innovation as the mediators of structural reconfiguration and innovation investment on firm performance. The results reveal that structural reconfiguration and innovation investment impact technological and non-technological innovation. Additionally, structural addition and investment in formal R&D have a moderated impact on technological innovation. Finally, firm performance may be boosted by organizational innovation.

Unraveling the influence of human capital and stakeholder engagement on corporate digital responsibility: Implications for firm performance in Southeast Asia enterprises

“…Firstly, hierarchical logistic regression is the appropriate statistical approach for investigating the dichotomous variables (CDR) as DV in Hypotheses H1 and H2. We employ the logit model with maximum‐likelihood estimation, a well‐suited technique for estimating parameters and asymptotic values, particularly in studies with large sample sizes (Vo Thai et al, 2022). Model evaluation uses several metrics, including the −2 log‐likelihood, statistic, and two indicators of model fit: Cox and Snell and Nagelkerke .…”

Dynamic capabilities and digitalization as antecedents of innovation and sustainable performance: empirical evidence from Vietnamese SMEs

“…SMEs may have an advantage in seizing due to their shorter decision-making chains and communication flows, enabling them to respond quickly (Canhoto et al , 2021). Finally, transforming involves altering company processes and routines, leveraging resources in new ways (Ellström et al , 2021), accessing new resources to fill identified gaps (Khurana et al , 2022) and releasing resources to create optimal combinations (Vo Thai et al , 2022).…”

Structural Reconfiguration of Firms toward Industrialization in Southeast Asia

“…Structural reconfiguration is required for a corporation to preserve evolutionary fitness, avoid unfavorable route dependencies, explore new prospects, and attain innovation efficiency (Karim & Kaul, 2015;Vo Thai et al, 2022). Further, by removing unattractive organizational structures in high-priority trajectories, a business may delay or avoid a decline in profitability and extend its growth cycles via structural reconfiguration (Karim, 2006(Karim, , 2012Karim & Kaul, 2015).…”

“…The Impact of Structural Reconfiguration on Firm Profitability. Reconfiguring the structure of ineffective and unattractive units within the company aims to expand the business life cycle and put the enterprise on a highpriority trajectory for growth (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997;Jantunen et al, 2018;Karim & Kaul, 2015;Vo Thai et al, 2022). Many recent studies have focused on the relationship between structural reconfiguration and post-reconfiguration outcomes.…”

“…Also, recent studies demonstrated the significant impact of structural reconfiguration on innovation and long-term performance, such as Vo Thai et al (2022), Wogwu and Hamilton (2018), and Albert (2018). Besides, Girod and Whittington (2017) contributed to the debate on the connection between dynamic capabilities and environmental dynamism by examining a set of large U.S. groups to determine the relationship between structural reconfiguration and performance.…”