Coordination mechanisms for international innovation in SMEs: effects on time-to-market and R&D task complexity as a moderator

Abstract

As SMEs increasingly internationalize their innovation activities, our study strives to improve our understanding of the coordination mechanisms that SMEs can adopt to orchestrate these activities. Building on the evolutionary theory of organizations, we link three established coordination mechanisms (centralization, formalization, and socialization) to the time-to-market of SMEs' product innovations. We also argue that the complexity of the internationalized R&D tasks moderates the relationship between the three coordination mechanisms and time-to-market. Survey data from 103 SMEs with international innovation activities broadly support our theoretical account. With respect to the main effects, our findings suggest that a high degree of centralization tends to prolong the time-to-market, whereas formalization tends to shorten it. The moderation results further indicate that centralization can become more beneficial when a firm internationalizes highly complex R&D tasks, while formalization tends to become less beneficial with increasing task complexity. Main and moderation effects with respect to socialization are inconclusive. We discuss the implications of these findings for the academic literature and management practice.

Family Influence and Digital Business Model Innovation: The Enabling Role of Dynamic Capabilities

“…However, this instantaneous relationship does not exist between long-term orientation or variability risk and digital BMI, as there is likely a multi-year time lag before long-term orientation or variability risk causally lead to digital BMI (Foss & Mahnke, 2002). One reason for this are “time-to-market lags” that occur between a firm’s long-term orientation respective variability risk and achieving digital BMI and other forms of innovation (Palmié et al, 2016; Zollo & Winter, 2002). Thus, the adoption of digital BMI in a given year is likely not connected to the firm’s long-term orientation or variability risk in the same and previous year.…”

Offshoring innovation: An empirical investigation of dyadic complementarity within SMEs

“…Chen & Paulraj, 2004;Rothaermel & Boeker, 2008). To that end, OI requires substantial coordination efforts to facilitate the achievement of desired innovation outcomes (Jap, 1999;Nietoa & Santamaria, 2007;Palmie et al, 2016).…”

The role of R&D investments and export on SMEs’ growth: a domain ambidexterity perspective

“…Despite the benefits of international markets for firms involved in innovation, a contemporary engagement in innovation and internationalization may not have any positive effect on the growth of SMEs, due to their financial capital and managerial attention constraints (e.g. Filipescu et al , 2013; Kumar, 2009), their tendency to centralize decision-making processes (Macri et al , 2002) and the lack of effective coordination between the sales, marketing and product development functions Palmiè et al (2015). For these reasons, exploration in both the market and the product domains can imply an overwhelming leaning process for an SME.…”