Internal and External Sources and the Adoption of Innovations in Organizations

Abstract

Research on knowledge sources and innovation has focused mainly on external knowledge sources and the generation of technological innovations. This study contributes by examining the dual role of internal and external sources of knowledge and information on the adoption of managerial innovations, a type of non‐technological innovation deemed essential for organizational effectiveness but not examined sufficiently. It also contributes to the innovation adoption literature by analysing adoption as a process, rather than a dichotomous choice. We investigate how the involvement of stakeholders for the selection of a new programme, and organizational actions for the implementation of that programme, affect its adoption. Regression analyses of privatization of 64 services in 1,512 public organizations provide empirical evidence in support of the influence of internal and external involvement, and internal, but not external, implementation actions. We also find that while the relative influence of internal and external stakeholders’ involvement on innovation adoption does not differ, internal implementation actions have a stronger effect than external implementation actions. We discuss the implications of our findings for the adoption of innovations in organizations and offer research ideas for understanding non‐technological innovations and their effects on organizational conduct and outcomes.

Innovation through R&D activities in the European context: antecedents and consequences

“…In addition, at the managerial and strategic levels, our results might be helpful for those managers searching for new markets at the local or international level. Consistent with the extant literature, the adoption of innovations may respond to both external and internal factors (Damanpour et al 2018), preparing firms to create or enter into new markets.…”

Firm Openness and Managerial Innovation: Rebalancing Deliberate Actions and Institutional Pressures

“…Two views continue to prevail in the open innovation literature: a technologic-centred view or a rational-view of open innovation, which both consider that opening the innovation process is invariably a rational or efficient choice (Bogers, et al, 2017 ;Damanpour, et al, 2018). Besides, another perspective, the institutional one, based on theoretical explanations from institutional, network, and behavioural contagion theories argues that firms introduce MI for social and institutional reasons rather than purely rational ones (Abrahamson, 1991 ;Staw, Epstein, 2000).However, institutional forces are still neglected (Tsinopoulos, et al, 2018) as emphasized by very recent study claims that open innovation has to be analysed considering institutional arguments (Radnejad et al, 2017).…”

The impact of digitization in Spanish scholarly publishers

“…The electronic book opens the possibility to new markets and potential applications (Camisón & Villar-López, 2014;Damanpour, Sanchez-Henriquez, & Chiu, 2018;Rogers, 2010), which forces publishers to rethink (question) the ways of doing until now, to take advantage of new means, which lead, for example, to new technological and/or commercial skills/abilities or to employ new modes or methods of problem solving (Damanpour et al, 2018;De Reuver, Sørensen, & Basole, 2018;Grigoriou & Rothaermel, 2017;Rogers, 2010).…”