The role of technology standards in product innovation: Theory and evidence from UK manufacturing firms

Foucart, Renaud; Li, Qian Cher

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.104157

Cited by 61 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Technological complexity and market uncertainty that converts technological input into new, innovative products is a process of high risk that requires extensive use of technology standards, therefore, innovation outcome is primarily motivated by the interrelation between standardization and technology lifecycles [39].…”

Section: The Interrelation Between Standardization Open Innovation and Responsible Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardization as a Catalyst for Open and Responsible Innovation

Pīlēna

Mežinska

Lapiņa

2021

Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standardization, based on scientific and technological development, provides solutions for optimal level of order in a wide range of industrial, societal and environmental fields. Analogically to the process of open innovation, the development of standards brings together the knowledge and experience of different stakeholders, resulting in solutions that are relevant and accessible to the general public. Similarly, the concept of responsible innovation requires a variety of stakeholders to be involved in innovation development to ensure that their present and future needs are met. Although the link between standardization and innovation is a widely explored issue, the interaction of standardization with the increasingly relevant concepts—open innovation and responsible innovation—remains a research gap, therefore the aim of the study is to identify the common characteristics of standardization and open and responsible innovation, as well as to analyze the interaction between these concepts. The research is based on a literature review on the concepts of standardization, standards development and open, responsible innovation, as well as a field analysis on the ongoing activities in standardization in relation to innovation. The similarities and interaction between standards development and the creation of open, responsible innovation is analyzed and as a result a model that combines the characteristics of standardization, open and responsible innovation and their interrelation is provided. The findings of the study demonstrate that both the standardization process itself and its outcomes can be compared to the processes of open and responsible innovation and can also be characterized as a contributor for creating the environment for the achievement of sustainable development and fostering open and responsible innovation.

show abstract

Section: The Interrelation Between Standardization Open Innovation and Responsible Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardization as a Catalyst for Open and Responsible Innovation

Pīlēna

Mežinska

Lapiņa

2021

Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Focusing on one industry helps us control for potential confounds on the innovativeness variable, such as the nature of products or markets. Because of this advantage, single-industry studies are common in management studies, for instance, in health care (Proksch et al, 2019;Sampat & Shadlen, 2017;Zheng & Yang, 2015), manufacturing (Foucart & Li, 2021;Gao et al, 2021), aerospace (Speldekamp et al, 2020), telecommunication (Clò et al, 2020;Nambisan, 2013) or food industry (Trott & Simms, 2017).…”

Section: Data and Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

International Diversification and MNE Innovativeness: A Contingency Perspective of Foreign Subsidiary Portfolio Characteristics

Mihalache

Ende

2021

Manag Int Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We advance research on how international diversification affects MNEs’ innovativeness by reconciling contradictory views on the role of international diversification for innovation. We do so by developing a portfolio perspective of MNE innovation that moves beyond foreign R&D subsidiaries to consider firms’ entire international footprints and by theorizing that MNE innovativeness depends on the interplay of geographical (i.e., regional diversification and institutional distance) and organizational (i.e., asset diversification and functional mandate breadth) characteristics of the foreign subsidiary portfolio. We test our proposed relationships on a unique multi-source panel dataset of Japanese listed electronics firms (266 firms and their 4505 subsidiaries between 2007 and 2015 resulting in 1936 firm-year observations and 28,350 subsidiary-year observations). We find that the institutional distance and asset diversification of the foreign subsidiary portfolio constrain the extent to which geographical (regional) diversification can enhance MNEs innovativeness. We also find that, at high levels of geographical diversification, MNEs with low levels of institutional distance and asset diversification in the foreign subsidiary portfolio tend to achieve higher innovativeness. Lastly, we did not find empirical support for functional mandate breadth as affecting how geographical diversification influences MNE innovativeness. Overall, the study highlights that, for a nuanced understanding of MNE innovativeness, managers need an encompassing and deliberate portfolio-level strategy that explicitly considers the interrelatedness of geographical and organizational characteristics.

show abstract

“…standards) encompass an industry's technological base and offer a nonproprietary (public) technical infrastructure upon which modular parts can be integrated to build more complex system-level technologies and products. Participation in developing these standards can thus allow firms to exploit early the "infratechnology" embodied in them, which will in turn reduce business risks at all stages of a firm's innovation process from initial R&D to technology commercialization (Tassey, 2000;Foucart and Li, 2021). We outline below three main channels whereby being a SSO member can affect the capital market perception of a firm's riskiness: technological uncertainty, product-market uncertainty and information asymmetry.…”

Section: Sso Participation and The Cost Of Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%