How does technological innovation fit with business model design to jointly impact firm growth? Given the increasingly salient role of business model, extant literature provides little answer to this question. This study builds a theoretical model based on technological innovation literature, business ecosystem theory, and business model literature to investigate this issue. This study finds that exploitative innovation and exploratory innovation fit with different business model designs to promote firm growth. Six hypotheses are proposed and examined by a database from 176 Chinese firms. This research finds that exploitative innovation has a negative whereas exploratory innovation has a positive effect on firm growth. More importantly, we find that efficiency‐centered business model design enhances the negative effect of exploitative innovation and weakens the positive effect of exploratory innovation. We also find that novelty‐centered business model design weakens the negative effect of exploitative innovation. This research contributes to both technological innovation and business model design literature.
PurposeAlthough the business model (BM) has become a top priority in management research, existing literature still offers a confusing and partial picture about how to leverage BM designs for new product development (NPD) because of two limitations. First, research has paid little attention to different BM designs' effects on NPD performance. Second, few empirical studies have examined the moderating roles of firms' learning capabilities, such as big data analytics capabilities (BDA capabilities). This study aims to investigate the effects of BM novelty design and BM efficiency design on NPD performance and the ways in which BDA capabilities moderate these effects.Design/methodology/approachA literature review provides the model and hypotheses. Using a sample of 208 Chinese firms, the authors conducted an empirical test following multiple regression analysis.FindingsThe results demonstrate that BM novelty design has a positive effect on NPD performance while BM efficiency design takes the form of an inverted U-shape. Moreover, BDA capabilities (i.e. BDA technology capability and BDA management capability) have complicated moderating effects on BM novelty design- and BM efficiency design-NPD performance relationships.Research limitations/implicationsThe results may be affected by both the context (solely in China) and type (cross-sectional) of the data set. This study has explored the moderating effects of BDA capabilities, further studies considering other significant practices such as social media usage, could yield richer insights that would help validate the results of this study.Practical implicationsFirst, we suggest that managers should be explicitly aware of the different impacts of BM novelty design and BM efficiency design on NPD performance. Second, this study encourages managers to build relevant BDA capabilities to work with BM designs to improve NPD performance.Originality/valueThis is one of the first studies to investigate BM designs' complicated influences on NPD success and explore BDA capabilities' moderating effects on the BM design-NPD performance linkage.
PurposeResearch on social media frequently analyze social media usage (SMU)'s positive consequences for organizations and individuals; however, recent innovation studies caution that SMU may not always lead to positive new product development (NPD) outcomes. The competing streams of research highlight a fundamental tension that exists in the social media literature exemplified by the question: Is SMU good or bad for NPD? In this manuscript, the authors suggest that a more appropriate question as follows: What are the positive and negative indirect effects of SMU on NPD performance? The purpose of this paper is to discuss the aforementioned points in detail.Design/methodology/approachA literature review provides the model and hypotheses. Using a sample of 168 Chinese firms, the authors conducted an empirical test following multiple regression analysis.FindingsThe results demonstrate that SMU facilitates business analytics (ability) and social legitimacy (opportunity) but impairs entrepreneurial proclivity (motivation). These three constructs in turn mediate the effect of SMU on NPD performance. Moreover, this paper explores how technological turbulence moderates SMU's effects on business analytics, entrepreneurship proclivity and social legitimacy.Research limitations/implicationsThe results may be affected by both the context (solely in China) and type (cross-sectional) of the data set. Future research might take a decompositional approach to study SMU's effect on innovation in different NPD stages. Furthermore, with widely varying purposes (e.g., marketing, information searching, partner collaboration, new product launch, etc.), there is certainly a need for more clarity and understanding of how firms can leverage each of these different social media activities for successful NPD.Practical implicationsFirst, we suggest that managers in China should be explicitly aware of the double-edged sword effect of SMU on NPD performance. Second, this study encourages managers to use social media carefully when technological turbulence becomes intense.Originality/valueDrawing on the ability–motivation–opportunity framework, this is one of the first studies to simultaneously examines the benefits and costs of SMU for NPD. In addition, this paper bridges the separate literatures on social media, business analytics, entrepreneurial proclivity and social legitimacy and contributes to the NPD research.
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to define co-exploitation, co-exploration, and alliance ambidexterity from the perspective of organizational learning; to analyze how knowledge bases, structural arrangements, and control mechanisms of R&D alliances influence co-exploitation and co-exploration; and to discuss how to achieve alliance ambidexterity by managing paradoxes around knowledge bases, structural arrangements, and control mechanisms. Design/methodology/approach -This is a conceptual paper focussing on how to balance exploitation and exploration at the alliance level through managing three paradoxes of cooperation: similarity vs complementarity, integration vs modularity, and contracts vs trust. Findings -While technological similarity, structural integration, and contracts are more likely to promote co-exploitation, technological complementarity, structural modularity, and trust are more likely to facilitate co-exploration. Alliance ambidexterity, which is beneficial for alliance performance, derives from either the combination of technological complementarity, structural integration, and contracts, or the combination of technological similarity, structural modularity, and trust temporally.Research limitations/implications -Researchers should analyze the possibility of building alliance ambidexterity in other types of interorganizational relationships, and find other possible antecedents of interorganizational learning. Practical implications -Managers should not simply treat R&D alliances as one of exploratory interorganizational relationships, but pay equal attention to co-exploitation and co-exploration. To achieve this balance, practitioners should combine technological complementarity with structural integration and contracts, or integrate technological similarity with structural modularity and trust. Originality/value -This paper is one of the first contributions that analyze how an R&D alliance could gain its ambidexterity through the management of nested cooperation paradoxes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.