The influence of dual innovation strategy on technological innovation performance of noncore firms: the moderating effect of network relationship
Liu Bo
Yunnan University of Finance and Economics
Yalin Zheng
Yunnan University of Finance and Economics
Tiantian Kong
Yunnan University of Finance and Economics
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/bam.v6i4.8388
Keywords: Non-core firms ; Network relationship; Innovation strategy
Abstract
Innovation is the first productive force, the implementation of innovation-driven development strategy, adhere to the core technology independent innovation non-core enterprises long-term development of the booster. The implementation of innovation-driven development strategy can promote the overall level of scientific and technological innovation. This paper constructs a strategy-network relations-performance model, uses 237 questionnaires from non-core enterprises as samples, and makes an empirical analysis of the choice mechanism of innovation strategy of non-core enterprises, considering the moderating effect of network relations. The results show that both breakthrough innovation strategy and progressive innovation strategy have positive effects on technological innovation performance. In the moderating effect, network density and network strength can significantly regulate the impact of innovation strategy on cooperative innovation performance, and the moderating effect on breakthrough innovation strategy and technological innovation performance is more significant and better than that on progressive innovation and technological innovation performance. Network centrality only has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between breakthrough innovation strategy and cooperative innovation performance. Therefore, when formulating the future development strategy of the company, non-core enterprises should be in the combination of multiple network relations with a more central-network position, high network density and high network strength, non-core enterprises should choose the breakthrough innovation strategy to grasp the development opportunity and carry out the breakthrough qualitative change development. When deviating from the central position of the network, the network density is small or the network strength is low in any of the situations, non-core enterprises should choose progressive innovation accumulate, and carry out progressive quantitative development.
References
[1] Wang Weiguang, FENG Rongkai, Yin Bo. Can control power of core enterprises Promote knowledge spillover in industrial innovation network? [J]. Management World,2015(6):99-109.
[2] Shi Min, Luo Jian, Hou Jun et al. Collaborative information service model and Practice for Enterprise Innovation strategy: Based on the practice analysis of information service of a biomedical enterprise [J]. Information Theory and Practice,2016(12):109-113.
[3] Miller T. Triana M. D. C. Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity-firm performance relationship[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2009, 46(5):755-786.
[4] Mary J. Benner, Michael L. Tushman. Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited. 2003, 28(2):238-256.
[5] Chandy R. k, Tellis G. j. Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1998, 35(4): 474-487.
[6] Li Wei. Research on the influence of strategic orientation Balance on product innovation and Business Performance [J]. Science Research Management, 2015, 36(01):143-151.
[7] Nathaniel Boso, Vicky M. Story, John W. Cadogan, et al. Firm Innovativeness and Export Performance: Environmental, Networking, and Structural Contingencies. 2013, 21(4):62-87.
[8] Hu Haibo, Guan Yonghong et al. Two case studies on the evolution mechanism of enterprise innovation network: Entrepreneurship and relationship embeddedness driving [J]. Science and Technology Progress and Countermeasures, 2020, 37(4): 90-98.
[9] Granovetter M S. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1985, 91(3):481-510.
[10] John Hagedoorn, Myriam Cloodt. Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? [J]. Research Policy, 2003, 32(8):1365-1379.
[11] Brian S. Fugate, Theodore P. Stank, John T. Mentzer. Linking improved knowledge management to operational and organizational performance[J]. Journal of Operations Management, 2009,27(3):247-264.
[12] Song Jing, Chen Juhong, Sun Yonglei. The Influence of dual strategic Orientation on collaborative innovation performance: The moderating role of network embeddedness [J]. Science of Science and Management of Science and Technology,2014,35(06):102-109.
[13] Liu Weiwei, Jin Yingzhe, Bi Kexin. Multi-dimensional proximity, innovation openness and cooperative innovation performance: Based on the perspective of network evolution [J]. Science Research Management, 2019,44(08):162-172.
[14] Liu Jin. The impact of Big Data application on Supply chain cooperative innovation performance from the perspective of collaboration [J]. Logistics Technology, 2019,46(19):113-117.
[15] Zhang Hui, Li Huiyi, Zhou Minfei. The influence of cooperation network embeddedness on enterprise technological innovation performance: from the perspective of knowledge network cohesion [J]. Journal of Hangzhou Dianzi University, 2019,20(02):17-26+35.
[16] Zeng Deming, Han Zhiqi, Zou Siming. Research on the impact of collaborative R&D network structure on industrial technology niche [J]. Science of Science and Science and Technology Management,2015,36 (03) :87-95.
[17] Release, Zhu Jiming. Research on the influence of innovation network and organizational Learning on innovation performance: Based on high-tech enterprises in Zhejiang Province [J]. East China Economic Management,2015,29 (10) :21-26.