Miguel Solís-Molina, Miguel Hernández-Espallardo and Augusto Rodríguez-Orejuela
This study aims to investigate how contractual vs. informal governance influences the performance of collaborative innovation projects considering their exploitation vs…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to investigate how contractual vs. informal governance influences the performance of collaborative innovation projects considering their exploitation vs. exploration character.
Design/methodology/approach
Data are collected from a sample of 218 companies that have developed innovative projects in collaboration with other organizations. Regression models are estimated to test the hypotheses.
Findings
The results indicate that contractual governance is the most effective for co-exploitation projects compared to informal governance. Specialization in either contractual or informal governance is more effective for co-exploration projects.
Practical implications
Developing collaborative innovation projects with other organizations is an alternative for firms to innovate either by exploiting complementary assets or by exploring new opportunities. Thus, the success of the collaborative innovation project is significantly affected by the way the collaboration is governed. On the one hand, for co-exploitation projects, companies should rely on contracts to improve their performance. On the other hand, for co-exploration projects, governance may specialize in either contracts or informal mechanisms to reach higher performance.
Originality/value
Despite previous studies analyzing the effect of contractual or informal governance on the performance of collaborative innovation projects, no research has focused on comparing simultaneously these effects, by using the innovation character of the project of co-exploitation or co-exploration as a moderator. Therefore, this paper explores comparatively the most effective type of governance mechanism for co-exploitation and co-exploration projects.
Details
Keywords
Miguel Solís-Molina, Miguel Hernández-Espallardo and Augusto Rodríguez-Orejuela
This study aims to analyze the moderating role of a firm’s alliance learning capability. The aim is to investigate the comparative performance of developing exploitation (or…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to analyze the moderating role of a firm’s alliance learning capability. The aim is to investigate the comparative performance of developing exploitation (or exploration) activities in collaboration with others vs adopting a go-it-alone posture.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors compare high levels of co-exploitation (or co-exploration) that represent the collaboration stance vs low levels of co-exploitation (or co-exploration) that characterize the go-it-alone posture. Data were collected using a sample of 262 manufacturing firms that developed exploitation-based innovations and 239 exploration-based innovations. Regression models were used to test the hypotheses.
Findings
Empirical results suggest that the best performance is reached by firms that exploit or explore collaborating with others at high levels of alliance learning capability. In contrast, firms perform better by going alone in exploitation activities at low levels of alliance learning capability.
Practical implications
Firms may complement internal efforts of exploitation or exploration by co-developing knowledge with other organizations for higher performance. However, collaborating with others is not free of drawbacks, and, under certain circumstances, the go-it-alone strategy is more convenient.
Originality/value
This paper provides evidence of the role of a firm’s alliance learning capability in determining the differential performance of carrying on exploitation or exploration activities in collaboration with others vs adopting a go-it-alone stance. Thus, it offers an alternative perspective in the literature on organizational learning and innovation management, in contrast with the exploitation and exploration balanced perspective of ambidexterity, by explaining how alliance learning capability fosters firm performance combining exploitation or exploration at organizational and inter-organizational levels.
Details
Keywords
Fabian F. Osorio Tinoco, Miguel Hernández-Espallardo and Augusto Rodriguez-Orejuela
The purpose of this paper is to clarify how responsive market orientation (RMO) and proactive market orientation (PMO) create competitive advantage.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to clarify how responsive market orientation (RMO) and proactive market orientation (PMO) create competitive advantage.
Design/methodology/approach
Nonlinear and interaction effects are tested by applying hierarchical regression analysis to a sample of 272 Colombian manufacturing companies.
Findings
The results show that although market orientation promotes the competitive advantage of a business, both approaches – responsive and proactive – exhibit saturation effects and a positive interaction.
Research limitations/implications
The main limitation of this study is the cross-sectional design and the use of a single source for data collection. It is suggested that future research includes different orientations combined with these two market orientations – responsive and proactive – for achieving competitive advantage. In addition, further studies could replicate this analysis for different environmental conditions.
Originality/value
This paper simultaneously evaluates the nonlinear and complementary effects of RMO and PMO. From a strategic standpoint, it presents an empirical confirmation of the familiarity trap, the failure trap and the positive effects of combining RMO and PMO.