Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios ISSN: 1806-4892 [email protected] Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado Brasil
Yamakawa Tsuja, Peter; Ostos Mariño, Jhony The Influence of the Environment on Organizational Innovation in Service Companies in Peru Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, vol. 15, núm. 49, agosto-diciembre, 2013, pp. 582-600 Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado São Paulo, Brasil
Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=94729777006
How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE GESTÃO DE NEGÓCIOS ISSN 1806-4892 RBGN Review of Business Management © FECAP
DOI: 10.7819/rbgn.v15i49.1586
Subject Area: Organizational Strategy and Behavior The Influence of the Environment on Organizational Innovation in Service Companies in Peru
Influência do Ambiente na Inovação Organizacional em Empresas Prestadoras de Serviços no Peru
Influencia del Entorno en la Innovación Organizacional en Empresas de Servicio en Perú
Peter Yamakawa Tsuja1 Jhony Ostos Mariño2
Received on March 13, 2013 / Approved on November 25, 2013 Responsible Editor: João Maurício Gama Boaventura, Dr. Evaluation Process: Double Blind Review
ABSTRACT RESUMO Several authors consider the environment Diversos autores consideram a variável ambiente variable to be an influential element on the um elemento influente na variável inovação, mas innovation variable, but they do not provide não aprofundam quanto às dimensões destas further insight of the dimensions of these variáveis. Este estudo, realizado em uma amostra variables. This study, applied to a sample of service de empresas prestadoras de serviços, abrange companies, includes dimensions of environment dimensões do ambiente (incerteza e complexidade) (uncertainty and complexity) and dimensions of e da inovação (técnica e administrativa), além das innovation (technical and administrative), as well as organizational characteristics as a moderating características organizacionais como variável variable in this relationship between environment mediadora da relação entre o ambiente e a and innovation. The results indicate that an inovação. Os resultados indicam que o ambiente uncertain environment promotes only technical incerto promove apenas a inovação técnica, ao innovation, while a complex environment passo que o ambiente complexo promove tanto a promotes both administrative and technical inovação técnica e quanto a administrativa. Este innovation. It was also found that organizational estudo também comprova que as características characteristics partially moderate the relationship organizacionais moderam parcialmente a relação between the two variables. entre as duas variáveis.
Keywords: _ Environment. Innovation. Organization Palavras-chave: _ Ambiente. Inovação. Organização.
1. PhD in Engineering from the University of Osaka, Japan. Professor of Universidad ESAN. [[email protected]] 2. PhD in Management Science from the Ramón Llull University - ESADE, Spain. Professor of Universidad ESAN. [[email protected]] Authors’ address: Alonso de Molina 1652, Monterrico, Surco – Lima, Peru 33
582
Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 The Influence of the Environment on Organizational Innovation in Service Companies in Peru
results when the environment evaluation is more RESUMEN comprehensive. In order to get a deeper idea Diversos autores consideran la variable entorno of the environment behavior, it is necessary to un elemento influyente en la variable innovación, analyze various dimensions of such environment; pero no profundizan en las dimensiones de estas the investigations on organizational innovation variables. Este estudio, realizado en una muestra are extensive, but limited by their reach, because de empresas de servicio, incluye dimensiones del they do not properly encompass the large margin entorno (incertidumbre y complejidad) y de la of each aspect of the innovation, such as the innovación (técnica y administrativa), además administrative innovation, Tidd (2001) and de las características organizacionales como Damanpour (1996), innovation studies have variable mediadora de la relación entre entorno e historically given priority to the investigation innovación. Los resultados indican que el entorno and development, and to technology, to then incierto promueve solo la innovación técnica, focus on the innovation of products and services mientras que el entorno complejo promueve tanto (DAMANPOUR; WALKER; AVELLANEDA, la innovación técnica como la administrativa. 2009). También se comprueba que las características The organizational innovation is defined organizacionales moderan parcialmente la relación in various ways; it is a process of generation, entre ambas variables. development and implementation of new ideas (DAMANPOUR, 1996); it is the development Palabras clave: _ Entorno. Innovación. Organización. and implementation of new ideas within an institutional order (VAN DE VEN, 1986); it is the implementation of new processes, new 1 INTRODUCTION products and new focus of administration to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the The environment is an external factor company (SEADEN et al., 2003). to the organization, and a direct motivator of In the literature review, innovation changes implementation in the company. It is a is frequently related to organization key element for the organizational innovation, (WISCHNEVSKY; DAMANPOUR, 2006), because its constant changes, on making the but the connection between the organizational management of value and quality of products characteristics and the types of innovation is and/or services difficult, stimulate the creation ignored. In the design of the organizational of new products, new services and new processes, structure, five basic configurations are identified: to compete in the marketplace (DAMANPOUR; simple structure, mechanical bureaucracy, EVAN, 1984; TUSHMAN; NADLER, 1986). professional, divisional bureaucracy, and Other authors state that the understanding of adhocracy, and nine organizational characteristics: the environment contingencies might promote specialization of the work, formalization, more effective innovation activities (HAN; KIM; training, group, size, planning and control, SRIVASTAVA, 1998; LI; ATUAHENE-GIMA, liaison mechanisms, vertical and horizontal 2001; TIDD, 2001). On the other hand, Farjoun decentralization (MINTZBERG, 1980). Out (2010) proposes a continuous need of change, of these organizational characteristics, three are innovation and exploration in organizations to more significant in the decision-making process: that they can remain in the marketplace. centralization, formalization and complexity Various authors state that the organizational (FREDRICKSON, 1986), which are used in innovation is expressed in changes of the this work. organization’s internal variables in response to The innovation practices in the services the changes in external variables; thus, the sector are developed throughout all the innovation activities in organizations have better management activities carried out in the company, 583 Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 Peter Yamakawa Tsuja / Jhony Ostos Mariño
and are less systematic than in the manufacturing to be more competitive (BARKEMA; BAUM; sector, because service companies rarely have a MANNIX, 2002). In high demand and sufficient research and development (R&D) department; resources’ environments of companies, innovation therefore, it is necessary to expand the study of activities are promoted; on the other hand, in innovations in service companies to understand low demand and scarce resources’ environments, other forms of innovation (TOIVONEN, 2010). innovation activities are restricted (KATILA; Resende Junior and Guimaráes (2012) conduct an SCOTT, 2005); independent companies extensive literature review on service innovation, provide the necessary ideas to variety of possible and state that there is a relative scarcity of innovations, while business groups provide the empirical studies addressing companies of the support infrastructure for the innovation activities public and private sectors. (MAHMOOD; MITCHELL, 2004). From this literature review, we can Researches associate environment with deduce that it is necessary to continue exploring uncertainty, complexity, dynamism, heterogeneity the relations between the environment and the and turbulence. Duncan (1972), on his part, organization’s internal variables, specifically the established two types of environment, which in organizational innovation and the organizational turn have two dimensions each: a) the simple- characteristics (DAMANPOUR, 1996; 1991; complex environment, which is related to the HAN; KIM; SRIVASTAVA, 1998; OLSON; amount of the environment factors; and b) SLATER; HULT, 2005; TIDD, 2001). Thus, the static and dynamic environment, which is the objective of this study is to examine the the degree in which the decision factors of the influence of the environment in the organizational external environment change. Miller (1991) innovation, as well as to analyze the behavior of analyzes the environment under two associations: the organizational characteristics as a moderator uncertain environment, which is associated to the variable of this relation. predictability of the marketplace changes, and the heterogeneous environment, which is associated to the variety of administrative, production and 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE marketing requirements. Han, Kim and Srivastava (1998) analyze the environment from two aspects: 2.1 Environment market turbulence, associated to the diversity of consumers’ preferences, and technology The environment is an external force turbulence, associated to the lack of technological which behavior influences the organization, standard of the manufacturing sector. Lee (2010); depending on the marketplace where it operates Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) also analyze the and the technology it uses. The changes of the environment from these aspects: a) Market environment are increasingly fast, and to survive turbulence, which is the customer’s preference companies should create new products, services changing rate; and b) Technology turbulence, and processes (TUSHMAN; NADLER, 1986). which is the new products and processes changing The environment behavior translates in new rate, as the result of a technological propagation. challenges for companies; some of them adopt Figure 1 shows a summary of the approaches to technology from other companies, while others the environment. create their own research and development efforts
584
Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 The Influence of the Environment on Organizational Innovation in Service Companies in Peru
Environment dimensions Authors Uncertain and complex Tidd (2001) Market turbulence and Technological turbulence Lee (2010; Olson, Slater and Hult (2005), Han, Kim and Srivastava (1998) Uncertain and heterogeneous Miller (1991) Simple-Complex and Static-Dynamic Duncan (1972)
FIGURE 1 – Environment dimensions according to authors Source: the authors
According to the reviewed environment improvement, production cost reduction) and analysis proposals, the authors propose studies effectiveness (bigger market share, customer and use different names to refer to the dimensions, satisfaction improvement) of the company although all of them have similar meanings. In (SEADEN et al., 2003). innovation management studies, Tidd (2001) In the reviewed papers, various types states that it is better to differentiate two of innovation were found, among them the dimensions of the environment: uncertainty and following: a) radical, which produces key changes complexity, because these two create different in the organization activities; b) incremental, requirements of administrative management; on which creates a lower degree change in the one hand, the complex environment is defined organization activities; c) administrative, referred as the amount of external variables influencing to changes in the organizational structure, the the organization, and, on the other hand, the administrative process and the human resources; uncertain environment exists in function of d) technical, related to the changes in products the changing rate of factors that influence the and services, and technology; e) of products, organization. In this study, the dimensions related to the introduction of new products and proposed by Tidd (2001) are recognized, while services in the marketplace; and f) of processes, the variables composing each of these dimensions: which is the introduction of new production customers, competitors, and technology, are processes of goods and services (DAMANPOUR, brought from Jaworski and Kohli (1993). 1996; DAMANPOUR; ARAVIND, 2012; Another important consideration about the SHEREMATA, 2004). There is also the type environment is the role played by the government. of disruptive innovation, in which the normal When a country does not have technology, the flow of products in the market is interrupted government can stimulate the economy through (GILBERT, 2003). the political and economic control; however, There are other types of innovation, such as: when a country has technology, the government a) compatible, b) incompatible, c) incompatible- can release the political and economic control radical, and d) compatible-incremental, which (MAHMOOD; RUFIN, 2005). The government are adopted depending on the marketplace can promote innovation activities through self- characteristics and the technology used by the owned or acquired innovations (HOSKISSON company (SHEREMATA, 2004). There is also et al., 2002). the architectural innovation, oriented towards the dynamic capacities to manage resources 2.2 Organizational innovation in new assets according to the marketplace changes (GALUNIC; EISENHARDT, 2001; The organizational innovation is related HENDERSON; CLARK, 1990). to the creation and implementation of new Some studies promote the type of ideas (DAMANPOUR, 1996; SEADEN et al., modular innovation for their utility in solving 2003; VAN DE VEN, 1986). With innovation, complex problems ((BALDWIN; CLARK, 2000; there is an attempt to enhance efficiency (quality ETHIRAJ; LEVINTHAL, 2004; PIL; COHEN, 585 Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 Peter Yamakawa Tsuja / Jhony Ostos Mariño
2006; SCHILLING; STEENSMA, 2001). Figure the social system and the technical system of 2 shows the different types of innovation. the organization, and in addition because the Among the various types of innovation, technical innovations and the administrative three classifications are under the spotlight: a) innovations are started in different areas of administrative and technical, b) of products the organization, with their own adoption and processes, and (c) radical and incremental processes (DAMANPOUR, 1996). Pursuant (DAMANPOUR, 1991). The distinction to this statement, other studies also analyze the between administrative innovation and technical organizational innovation, making a distinction innovation is regarded as important in the between technical innovation and administrative innovation and structure studies, because it innovation (HAN; KIM; SRIVASTAVA, 1998). allows better observing the differences between
FIGURE 2 – Types of innovation according to authors Source: the authors
The implementation of radical innovations D’Alvano and Hidalgo (2012) state that consumers supposes overcoming organizational barriers, are increasingly demanding more, better and which implies stimulating the employees’ more valuable services, and thus organizations absorption capacity, the elimination of routine need to improve their innovation process in actions, fostering the pursuit of ideas, and the order to develop new solutions. Toivonen (2010) exploration of other market niches (HILL; extends the innovation investigation to service ROTHAERMEL, 2003). The success of radical companies, analyzing three types of innovation innovation depends on the corporate culture processes: a) Innovation as a project separated (TELLIS; PRABHU; CHANDY, 2009). from the practice, b) innovation following the fast Other researches focused on the actions application model; and c) innovation following prior to the implementation of innovations, the practical management model. because they can cause a different and effective impact (ZHOU; YIM; TSE, 2005). Damanpour 2.3 Organizational characteristics and Schneider (2009) found an impact of the innovation characteristics and of the managers’ The replacement of old organizational characteristics on the adoption of innovation. structures by new organizational structures is Almirall and Casadesus-Manasell (2010) point known as organizational redesign, which includes out that for a better innovation implementation, changes in the organizational characteristics. executives should keep objectives homogeneous. The organizational transformation is a major 586
Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 The Influence of the Environment on Organizational Innovation in Service Companies in Peru change including the organizational structure, Frequently, the association between the distribution of power, and the strategy organizational characteristics and the types of (WISCHNEVSKY; DAMANPOUR, 2006). organization is ignored. Nevertheless, three Mintzberg, Quinn and Voyer (1997) organizational characteristics, centralization, propose seven structural configurations: a) formalization and complexity of tasks, received more Business organization, b) Machine organization, attention because they have a stronger influence in c) Professional organization, d) Diversified strategic decision-making (FREDRICKSON, organization, e) Innovative organization, f) 1986). A similar analysis of these three organizational Missionaire organization, and g) Political characteristics is also found in the studies of Olson, organization. In regard to the organizational Slater and Hult (2005). characteristics, in another paper, Mintzberg (1980) proposes nine of them: a) work specialization, b) formalization, c) training, d) group, e) size, f) 3 THEORETICAL REFERENCES planning and control, g) liaison mechanisms, h) vertical decentralization, and i) horizontal 3.1 Relation between the environment and the decentralization. organizational innovation The organization structure and characteristics are related to the environment Damanpour (1996) states that innovation behavior. In a stable environment, the is a process of creation and implementation of organizational structure can be rigid and have the new ideas in the organization in response to the following organizational characteristics: vertical environment changes. According to the reviewed control, efficiency, specialization, standardization paper, there is a relation between the environment and centralization in the decision-making variables and the organizational innovation, and between each of the different dimensions of such process; in a quickly changing environment, a variables; McCrea and Betts (2008) point out that more flexible structure is needed, with a strong innovations allow companies to get a competitive horizontal coordination, little standardization, edge, in addition to becoming more capable of and a centralized decision-making process (DAFT, responding to the dynamic environment. Misra, 2004). An uncertain environment keeps a negative Sharma and Kadar (2011) state that innovation relation with the centralization of decisions, and is a key element for the success of organizations, a positive relation with the organic structure; which need to be constantly changing to make use a heterogeneous environment is related to the of the opportunities offered by the environment. specialization and to the liaison mechanisms Semadeni and Anderson (2010) state that the (MILLER, 1991). consequences of innovation and imitation in In a study on the relations between the services sector are still unknown, even more organizational innovation and thirteen in environments with uncertainty and with organizational characteristics, Damanpour a high information asymmetry. Tidd (2001) (1991) found out that ten of such characteristics proposes analyzing the environment dimensions: are associated to innovation: specialization, complexity and uncertainty because both affect functional differentiation, management attitudes the magnitude and the nature of innovation. towards change, professionalism, decentralization, In the literature review, we have found sources of technical knowledge, administrative various types of innovation; however, for intensity, inactive resources, and internal and studies including organizational innovation, external communication, while the other three organizational structure, and organizational are directly associated to innovation: high performance, Damanpour (1996) recommends formalization, centralization of decisions, and to differentiate technical innovation from vertical differentiation. administrative innovation, because these two 587 Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 Peter Yamakawa Tsuja / Jhony Ostos Mariño
types of innovation better relate to the social and Atuahene-Gima (2001) state that the effectiveness technical system of the organization. To maintain of product innovation depends on the management or improve the performance level, the balanced perception of the environment complexity. adoption of an administrative innovation and As for the innovation analysis, according a technical innovation is more effective in the to several authors, the adoption of the organization than rather only the implementation organizational innovation takes place through of one of them. Technical innovations promote various types of innovation ((DAMANPOUR; the organizational effectiveness, while the SZABAT ; EVAN, 1989; GATIGNON et al., administrative innovations are necessary to 2002). There are two alternatives to analyze obtain a balance between the social structure the organizational innovation: evaluate it as and the technical system of the organization a single variable, or independently evaluate (DAMANPOUR; SZABAT; EVAN, 1989). each of its dimensions: technical innovation and administrative innovation. Han, Kim 3.2 Organizational characteristics as moderator and Srivastava (1998) propose to examine the variable organizational innovation as a single variable, also from each of its dimensions. In view of the Tidd (2001) states that the best aforementioned, the following hypotheses are innovation administration practices vary suggested: depending on a series of external factors of the company, suggesting the consideration of H1: An increase of environment changes generates an increase of the the organization variable in the analysis of the organizational innovation. environment and of the innovation. Also, he H2a: An increase of the environment states that considering that the environment uncertainty generates an increase of the changes affect the organization behavior, it is technical innovation. H2b: An increase of the environment better to look for different organizational designs uncertainty generates an increase of the that adapt to such changes. Adams, Bessant administrative innovation. and Phelps (2006) state that to create and to H3a: An increase of the environment complexity generates an increase of the transform ideas of products that are usable technical innovation. and tradable in the marketplace, high levels of H3b: An increase of the environment inter-functional coordination and integration complexity generates an increase of the are needed. The innovative organizations have administrative innovation. a flexible organizational structure, promote the diversity of opinions, and have specialists Tidd (2001) proposes to consider the instead of generalists to make decisions related organization variable in the environment and to innovation (MISRA; SHARMA; KADAR, innovation analysis. Thus, other studies examine 2011). the organizational characteristics, and relate them to the environment (MILLER, 1987; OLSON; SLATER; HULT, 2005) or to the implementation 4 HYPOTHESIS of innovation practices (DAMANPOUR; EVAN, 1984; DECANIO; DIBBLE; In regard to the relation between the AMIR-ATEFI, 2000; KIMBERLY; EVANISKI, environment and the organizational innovation, 1981). Considering the aforementioned, we Han, Kim and Srivastava (1998), and Li and propose the following hypotheses: Atuahene-Gima (2001) state that a bigger H4a: The organizational characteristics uncertainty of the environment promotes strengthen the relation between a bigger innovation of the company. In the environment and the technical regard to the complex environment, Li and innovation. 588
Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013
As for the innovation analysis, according to several authors, the adoption of the organizational innovation takes place through various types of innovation ((DAMANPOUR; SZABAT ; EVAN, 1989; GATIGNON et al., 2002). There are two alternatives to analyze the organizational innovation: evaluate it as a single variable, or independently evaluate each of its dimensions: technical innovation and administrative innovation. Han, Kim and Srivastava (1998) propose to examine the organizational innovation as a single variable, also from each of its dimensions. In view of the aforementioned, the following hypotheses are suggested:
H1: An increase of environment changes generates an increase of the organizational innovation. H2a: An increase of the environment uncertainty generates an increase of the technical innovation. H2b: An increase of the environment uncertainty generates an increase of the administrative innovation. H3a: An increase of the environment complexity generates an increase of the technical innovation. H3b: An increase of the environment complexity generates an increase of the administrative innovation.
Tidd (2001) proposes to consider the organizationThe Influence variable of the in Environment the environment on Organizational and Innovation in Service Companies in Peru innovation analysis. Thus, other studies examine the organizational characteristics, and relate them to the environment (MILLER, 1987; OLSON; SLATER; HULT, 2005) or to the implementation of innovationH4b: Thepractices organizational (DAMANPOUR; characteristics EVAN, bigger1984; scaleDECANIO; economies in their activities, in DIBBLE; AMIR-ATEFI, strengthen2000; KIMBERLY; the relation EVANISKI,between the 1981).comparison Considering to smallthe and micro companies, and aforementioned, we propose environmentthe following andhypotheses: the administrative innovation. such differences are expressed in the employees’
perceptions of belonging and valuation. H4a: The organizational characteristics strengthen the relation between the environment andThis the study technical is conducted innovation. at the level of The sample has 104 companies of the H4b: dimensions,The organizational both for thecharacteristics environment strengthen (uncertain the relationservice betweensector, belonging the to the subsectors of banks environmentand complex), and the administrative as well as for innovation. the organizational and insurances, commerce, transports, technology, innovation (technical and administrative), and telecommunications, education, tourism, among This study is conducted at the level of dimensions, both for the environment the organizational characteristics are included as (uncertain and complex), as well as for the organizational innovationothers, (technical which operationand centers are located in administrative),moderator and the organizationalvariable. Figure characteristics 3 shows the proposedare included as Lima,moderator Peru. variable. Data collection was carried out Figure 3 showsmodel. the proposed model. through a live survey with 192 executives working in different service companies in Lima, Peru. This
Organizational live survey compilation procedure allowed to characteristics evaluate the fitness of respondents to the study, besides allowing the respondents to clarify some Environment Innovation doubts about the study object. The main data of Uncertain Technical the companies, such as the RUC1, type of industry Complex Administrative
and number of workers, were confirmed with the FIGURE 3 – Model proposed in the study public information obtained on the Internet. FIGURE 3 – Model proposed in the study Source: tSourcehe authors: the authors Of the 192 collected questionnaires, those wrongly filled out and/or incomplete were 5 DESIGN OF THE SURVEY eliminated; thus, 104 valid questionnaires were
5 DESIGN OF THE SURVEY obtained, which meant to achieve a response
rate of 54.2%. The8 respondents were working 5.1 Sample in different hierarchical levels in their respective companies; thus, he had 27 managers (26%), 40 The study addresses the analysis of department heads (38%), 12 supervisers (12%), companies from the service sector operating in and 25 analysts (24%). The information was Lima, Peru, with 50 workers or more. Service collected during four weeks, taking due care to companies were selected because this sector avoid significant differences between the first and employs more than 50% of the economically the last respondent. active population according to the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics – INEI 5.2 Measurement instrument ([2008]), being an important drive for the Peruvian economy growth, registering an annual A questionnaire was designed to evaluate all average growth rate of more than 6% in the past the variables of the study: uncertain environment, seven years – INEI ([2010]), and this trend should complex environment, technical innovation, be maintained. 2009 was an exception, and in that administrative innovation, and organizational year the growth rate was reduced as a result of the characteristics. Questions about the uncertain international crisis. Companies were carefully environment, complex environment, technical selected to have 50 workers or more, because innovation, administrative innovation variables, the size of the company is very important in are based on concepts of different authors, but innovation studies, in order to prevent distortions were exclusively elaborated for this investigation. in the answers of respondents. Gopalakrishnan For the environment, the concepts of Olson, (2000) points out that large companies have Slater and Hult (2005), and Jaworski and 589 Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 Peter Yamakawa Tsuja / Jhony Ostos Mariño
Kohli (1993) were considered; and for the Likert scale of five points, which was used by organizational innovation, the concepts of Han, Tegarden et al. (2005). Kim and Srivastava (1998), Damanpour, Szabat In the study, the environment is defined and Evan (1989), and Damanpour (1996) were as the changes of the uncertain and complex considered. external factors that affect the organization. The The process of elaborating and validating uncertain environment is defined as the frequency the measurement instrument consisted of the of change of external variables that affect the following actions: a) review of the definition of organization, such as: customers, competition, each variable concept and its components, b) technology; and the complex environment, as elaboration of the new instrument proposal, c) the amount of external variables that affect the review of the questionnaire by a survey design organization, such as: customers, competition and specialist; and d) elaboration of pilot-tests to technology (TIDD, 2001). For each dimension check the reliability and validity of the instrument. of the environment, the measurement was done On the other hand, questions about on the average of questions composing it. The the organizational characteristics variable were Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient in the dimensions of adapted from questionnaires used in previous the environment: uncertain environment (.919) studies, and were based on the measurement and complex environment (.867) exceed 0.7, instrument of Olson, Slater and Hult (2005). value proposed by Klein, Astrachan and Smyrnios To that end, the following actions were carried (2005) for the reliability analysis test. out: a) translation from English to Spanish of the The organizational innovation is the original questionnaire by an authorized translator, implementation of changes in products, services, b) inverse translation from Spanish to English (of processes, and the administrative aspects of the questionnaire translated in the previous step the organization and in this study are unfold by another authorized translator, c) final review in two dimensions: technical innovation and of the translations by a translator whose mother administrative innovation. The first one consists tongue is English, d) review of the questionnaire of the implementation of changes in products, by a specialist of interpretative translation; and e) services and production processes, while the conduction of pilot-tests to evidence the reliability second is the implementation of changes in and validity of the instrument. For the process the organizational structure, human resources of English to Spanish translation and the inverse and administrative processes (DAMANPOUR, translation, the process followed by Lee (2010) 1996). In order to measure the organizational was followed. innovation, there is no accepted proposal that encompasses all the literature gaps (ADAMS; 5.3 Measurement BESSANT; PHELPS, 2006); both questions corresponding to the environment and to the In this investigation, we propose a data organizational innovation, and their respective collection instrument (questionnaire) that collects dimensions, were formulated by the author perceptive answers about the behavior of each exclusively for this investigation. For each variable. The use of perceptive answers is very important because it allows the comparison of dimension of the organizational innovation, results among different subsectors. The proposal the measurement was done on the average of of the questionnaires with perceptive answers questions composing it. The Cronbach’s Alpha is based on the applications of Olson, Slater coefficient of the dimensions of the organizational y Hult (2005); Tegarden et al. (2005) and innovation: technical innovation (.907) and Gopalakrishnan (2000). The measurement was administrative innovation (.863)] exceeds 0.7, the done by using an average of the items composing value proposed by Klein, Astrachan and Smyrnios each variable. Questions were presented in a (2005) for a reliability analysis test. 590
Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 The Influence of the Environment on Organizational Innovation in Service Companies in Peru
In this study, the organizational environment, and the two dimensions of the characteristics are defined as the work organizational innovation: technical innovation coordination manners that interact in an and administrative innovation. Table 1 presents organization (FREDRICKSON, 1986), such a rotated factorial matrix of the environment as the formalization and the specialization. The with ten items used to build the two dimensions questionnaire questions associated to this variable of the environment. The upper half of the were taken from the survey conducted by Olson, column of factor 1 corresponds to the uncertain Slater and Hult (2005). environment, which has five items (.967; .859; .857; .824; and .808). The lower half of the 5.4 Validity of the environment and column of factor 2 corresponds to the complex organizational innovation variables environment, which has five items (.817; .803; .790; .786; and .783). Such items have a high The confirmation of the hypotheses degree of reasonable saturation, which confirms rests on the validity of the environment the unidimensional nature of the two variables, dimensions: uncertain environment and complex and the justification of the groups formed.
TABLE 1 – Rotated factorial matrix of the environment Dimensions of the Environment Factor 1 Factor 2 Uncertain environment The environment is highly changeable 0.967 0.193 Changes in the environment bring about immediate answers 0.859 0.038 We are aware of the changes in the environment 0.857 0.074 Advantageous decisions for changes in the environment 0.824 0.171 Changes in the environment bring about opportunities 0.808 0.263 Complex environment Amount of variables that affect new products and services 0.215 0.817 Amount of changes of the environment that represent threats -0.006 0.803 Amount of variables the company is aware of to control 0.193 0.790 Amount of environment changes that bring about opportunities 0.243 0.786 Amount of variables that affect decisions 0.058 0.783 Percentage of variance 48.25 23.67 Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Items that are inside the box have high reasonable saturation. Source: _ the authors
In regard the validity of the dimensions the technical innovation, which has five items comprehended by the organizational innovation, (.891; .862; .843; .834; and .832). The lower a factor analysis with a varimax rotation was half of the column of factor 2 corresponds to carried out. Table 2 shows the rotated factorial the administrative innovation, which has five matrix of the organizational innovation with ten items (.897; .846; .841; .717; and .702). Such items used to build the two dimensions of the items confirm the unidimensional nature of the organizational innovation: technical innovation two variables, and the justification of the groups and administrative innovation. The upper formed. half of the column of factor 1 corresponds to
591 Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 Peter Yamakawa Tsuja / Jhony Ostos Mariño
TABLE 2 – Rotated factorial matrix of the organizational innovation Dimensions of the organizational innovation Factor 1 Factor 2 Technical innovation Improvement of work methods and techniques 0.891 0.092 Improvement of products and/or services design 0.862 0.001 Improvement of automated systems 0.843 0.032 Improvement of production processes 0.834 0.112 Improvement of processes incorporating new technology 0.832 -0.009 Administrative innovation Change of work positions -0.107 0.897 Change of organizational structure -0.053 0.846 Change of functions of work positions 0.064 0.841 Increase of changes of work positions 0.106 0.717 Change of administrative work rules 0.178 0.702 Percentage of variance 48.25 23.67 Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Items that are inside the box have high reasonable saturation. Source: the authors
To comply with the assumptions of the and the administrative innovation, respectively. multi variant analysis, all the variables of this Table 3 shows that such relations are partially study accomplish the normality test through the sustained, because the parameter of the uncertain Kolomogorov-Smirnov statistic test, which tells environment in the case of technical innovation us that the sample comes from a population with (H2a) is positive and significant (β = .446; normal distribution. Furthermore, the variables p < 0.05); on the other hand, against the accomplish the homoscedasticity test through prediction, the parameter estimated for the the Levene statistic test, which shows us that the uncertain environment (H2b) is not statistically variances of the studied groups are homogeneous. significant for the administrative innovation (β = n. s.). The hypothesis H2a is favorably sustained, while the H2b is not. 6 RESULTS The hypotheses H3a and H3b suggest that n increase of the environment complexity 6.1 Environment and organizational innovation generates an increase of the technical innovation and the administrative innovation, respectively. The H1 hypothesis suggests that the bigger Table 3 shows that such hypotheses are fully changes in the environment are, without taking sustained, because the parameter of the complex into consideration whether the environment is environment in the case of technical innovation uncertain or complex, the more organizational (H3a) is positive and significant (β = .434; innovation activities are created. Table 3 shows p < 0.05), and the parameter estimated for that this relations is positive and significant the complex environment in the case of the (β = .462; p < 0.05), for what the H1 hypothesis administrative innovation (H3b) is also statistically is favorably sustained. positive and significant (β = .296; p < 0.05). The hypotheses H2a and H2b suggest that n increase of the environment uncertainty generates an increase of the technical innovation
592
Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 The Influence of the Environment on Organizational Innovation in Service Companies in Peru
TABLE 3 – Statistic results of the environment-innovation model Environment Dependent variable β R2 F Innovation .462 (**) 0.22 28.10 (**) Uncertain environment Dependent variable β R2 F Technical innovation .446 (**) 0.18 22.35 (**) Administrative innovation n.s. n.s. n.s. Complex environment Dependent variable β R2 F Technical innovation .434 (**) 0.16 19.77 (**) Administrative innovation .296 (**) 0.07 7.26 (**)
(*) p<.10; (**) p<.05; n.s.=p>.10 N = 104 questionnaires Source: the authors
6.2 Organizational characteristics as the step 2, the organizational characteristics variable moderator of the relation between the was added; in this step, the environment variable environment and the organizational reached significance (b = .51; p < 0.05), and innovation the organizational characteristics variable also reached a high significance (b = .36; p < 0.05). The hypothesis H4a suggests that the In step 3, the interaction of the environment and organizational characteristics variable moderates organizational characteristics (moderator variable) the relation between the environment and the variables was introduced, but no significant results technical innovation To obtain the results, were obtained. Therefore, the H4a hypothesis is a product of the environment variables not demonstrated. (independent variable) and the organizational The hypothesis H4b suggests that the characteristics (proposed moderator variable) organizational characteristics variable moderates was defined, in order to represent the interaction the relation between the environment and between both variables. A three-step hierarchical the administrative innovation. To obtain the regression analysis was done for the organizational results, a product of the environment variables characteristics moderator, considering the (independent variable) and the organizational technical innovation as a dependent variable. characteristics (proposed moderator variable) The conceptual explanation of the moderator was defined, in order to represent the interaction variable is observed in the studies of Barón and between both variables. A three-step hierarchical Keny (1986), and the solution by means of regression analysis was done for the organizational the hierarchical regression process to analyze a characteristics moderator, considering the moderator can be observed in the studies of Quiles administrative innovation as a dependent variable. et al. (2006). Prior to conducting the statistic Results are shown in Table 5. calculations, the variables were standardized In step 1 of the regression analysis, the (converted in Z scores) to reduce the potential environment variable was introduced, which multicollinearity (QUILES et al., 2006). The have significance (b = .26; p < 0.10). In step 2, statistic results are shown in Table 4. the organizational characteristics variable was In step 1 of the regression analysis, the introduced; in this step, the environment variable environment variable was introduced, and which reached high significance (b = .32; p < 0.05), had a high significance (b = .66; p < 0.05). In while the organizational characteristics variable
593 Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 Peter Yamakawa Tsuja / Jhony Ostos Mariño
reached significance (b = -.13; p < 0.10). In step this case the interaction between the moderator 3, the interaction between the environment and variable and the predicting variable was associated organizational characteristics (moderator variable) to a significant increase of the explained variance variables was introduced, and high significant of the administrative innovation (ΔF= 7.01; results were obtained (b = .41; p < 0.05); in p <.05). Therefore, the H4b hypothesis is sustained.
TABLE 4 – Hierarchical regression analysis for the organizational characteristics moderator, with the technical innovation as a dependent variable
Variables β R2 ∆R2 F ∆F
Step 1 0.256 0.256 35.13 (**) 35.13 (**) Environment .66 (**) Step 2 0.364 0.108 28.91 (**) 17.14 (**) Environment .51 (**) Organizational characteristics .36 (**) Step 3 0.380 0.016 20.41 (**) 2.35 (n.s.) Environment * Organizational characteristics n.s. Dependent variable: Technical innovation (*) p<.10; (**) p<.05; n.s.=p>.10 N = 104 questionnaires Source: the authors
TABLE 5 – Hierarchical regression analysis for the organizational characteristics moderator, with the administrative innovation as a dependent variable
Variables β R2 ∆R2 F ∆F
Step 1 0.036 0.036 3.85 (*) 3.85 (*) Environment .26 (**) Step 2 0.049 0.012 2.59 (*) 1.32 (n.s) Environment .32 (**) Organizational characteristics -.13 (*) Step 3 0.111 0.062 4.17 (**) 7.01 (**) Environment * Organizational characteristics -.41 (*) Dependent variable: Technical innovation (*) p<.10; (**) p<.05; n.s.=p>.10 N = 104 questionnaires Source: the authors
7 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS characteristics as moderator variable of this relation, it is evidenced, through the analysis Considering the study objective of of empirical data, that there is, on one side, examining the relation between the environment some evidences of the positive influence of the and the organizational innovation, and of environment on the organizational innovation, analyzing the behavior of the organizational and, on the other side, that there is a partial
594
Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 The Influence of the Environment on Organizational Innovation in Service Companies in Peru moderator influence of the organizational presupposes that when service companies characteristics variable on the relation between implement a technical innovation, they take into environment and the organizational innovation. consideration the environment behavior, but do The environment variable, without not consider the organizational characteristics considering whether it is uncertain or complex, variable (formalization and specialization) to influences the organizational innovation, which make this relation stronger; in any case, they means that the service companies take into focus more on the implementation of technical consideration the behavior of external factors innovations (products/services, production that affect the organization to conduct activities processes and methods). of organizational innovation; this is related to The moderator influence of the the works of: Damanpour (2010), who states organizational characteristics variable is significant that innovations are influenced by the market in the relation between the environment and the conditions2; and McCrea and Betts (2008), who administrative innovation, which presupposes indicate that innovations allow companies to that service companies strengthen their relation better respond to changes in the environment. In with the environment when implementing the analyses of the environment dimensions, we an administrative innovation (changes in the found out that the uncertain environment has a organizational structure, human resources and high significance for the application of technical administrative processes) with the intervention of the organizational characteristics variable innovations; however, the same does not occur (formalization and specialization). in the case of the administrative innovation. This To the executives and/or businessmen, means that the most changes and uncertainty the the perception of uncertainty in the environment companies perceive in the behavior of customers, results in prioritizing technical innovations, but competitors and technology, the more priority no the administrative ones. This is a proposal that they will give to the implementation of changes should be reformulated, because the balanced in products/services, processes and methods of adoption of a technical innovation and an production, before changing the organizational administrative innovation is more effective in the structure, human resources and administrative organization than the implementation of only processes. This result partially confirms the one of them (DAMANPOUR; SZABAT; EVAN, statement of Tidd (2001). 1989); regarding this proposal, Damanpour In the complex environment, results (2010) states that the types of innovation are indicate that this facilitates the implementation not necessarily independent, and that they are of two types of innovation, technical and interrelated, and therefore their exploration should administrative, which means that the perception be continued. The perception of the complexity of the magnitude or the higher number of or magnitude of the environment results in customers, competitors and technology will both types of innovation: technical innovations push the implementation both of technical and promote the organizational effectiveness, while administrative innovations; in any case, changes administrative innovations are necessary to will be implemented in products/services, obtain a balance between the social structure processes and methods of production, as well as and the technical system of the organization in the organizational structure, human resources (DAMANPOUR; SZABAT; EVAN, 1989). and administrative processes. This result confirms The study results reinforce the proposal that the statement of Tidd (2001). companies should consider the importance of The moderator influence of the the administrative innovation as a complement organizational characteristics variable is of the technical innovation, especially when the not significant in the relation between the environment is perceived as uncertain. environment and technical innovation, which
595 Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 Peter Yamakawa Tsuja / Jhony Ostos Mariño
8 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS Nota FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS 1. Single taxpayer registry, is a numeric code that identifies the company for tax purposes. There are various aspects not addressed in this study. The investigation is oriented towards 2. In this study the market is an external variable found in the exploration of what happens in the service the environment. sector. This means that the results can only be generalized for this sector, but not necessarily for each subsector: banking, insurances, commerce, REFERENCES transports, technology, telecommunications, education, tourism, among others. This proposal ADAMS, R.; BESSANT, J.; PHELPS R. agrees with Zhou, Yim and Tse (2005), who Innovation management measurement: a review. state that the impact of innovations is different International Journal of Management Reviews, in each type of market. Crossan and Apaydin Oxford, v. 8, n. 1, p. 21-47, Mar. 2006. (2010), in turn, suggest that new studies should ALMIRALL, E.; CASADESUS-MANASELL, propose different types of innovation in different R. Open versus closed innovation: a model sectors of the industry; and that is why we of discovery and divergence. Academy of suggest that future studies should examine the Management Review, Briarcliff Manor, v. 35, importance of the technical innovation and of the n. 1, p. 27-47, Jan. 2010. administrative innovation in other sectors, such as manufacturing, for instance. BALDWIN, C.; CLARK, K. Design rules: the The conclusions of this study were power of modularity. Cambridge: MIT Press, formulated based on the analysis of the information 2000. perceived obtained through questionnaires, and no quantitative data were used. The measurement BARKEMA, H.; BAUM, J.; MANNIX, E. results were based on perceptions which could had Management challenges in a new time. Academy been influenced by some kind of bias, considering of Management Journal, New York, v. 45, n. 5, that the perception of magnitudes as “very p. 916-930, Oct. 2002. much” or “little”, “bigger” or “smaller” can vary BARÓN, R.; KENNY, D. The moderator- according to the subsector, the company age, the mediator variable distinction in social hierarchical position occupied by the interviewee, psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and among other factors. Future studies should statistical considerations. Journal of Personality examine the relation between the environment and Social Psychology, Washington, D.C., v. 51, and the organizational innovation, taking into n. 6, p. 1173-1182, Dec. 1986. consideration quantitative data. The period between the innovation CROSSAN, M.; APAYDIN, M. A Multi- implementation and its impact on the dimensional framework of organizational organizational performance can vary in each innovation: a systematic review of the literature. subsector. For instance, in banks the perception Journal of Management Studies, Oxford, v. 47, of the innovation effect on the performance is n. 6, p. 1154-1191, Sept. 2010. immediate in comparison to other subsectors, such as commerce, education and others, which DAFT, R. Organization theory and design. 8th results are perceived at the medium term (HAN; ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 2004. KIM; SRIVASTAVA, 1998). In the future, studies D’ALVANO, L.; HIDALGO, A. Innovation should take into consideration samples of a single management techniques and development degree subsector.
596
Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 The Influence of the Environment on Organizational Innovation in Service Companies in Peru of innovation process in service organizations. DECANIO, S.; DIBBLE, C.; AMIR-ATEFI, R&D Management, [S. l.], v.42, n.1, p. 60-70, K. The importance of organizational structure Jan. 2012. for the adoption of innovations. Management Science, Linthicum, v. 46, n. 10, p. 1285-1299, DAMANPOUR, F. An integration of research Oct. 2000. findings of effects of firm size and market competition on product and process innovations. DUNCAN, R. Characteristics of organizational British Journal of Management, Oxford, v. 21, environments and perceived environmental n. 4, p. 996-1010, Dec. 2010. uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, Ithaca, v. 17, n. 2, p. 313-327, Sept. 1972. ______. Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple ETHIRAJ, S.; LEVINTHAL, D. Modularity and contingency models. Management Science, innovation in complex systems. Management Linthicum, v. 42, n. 5, p. 693-716, May 1996. Science, Linthicum, v. 50, n. 2, p. 159-173, Feb. 2004. ______. Organizational innovation: a meta analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. FARJOUN, M. Beyond dualism: stability and Academy of Management Journal, New York, change as a duality. Academy of v. 34, n. 3, p. 555-590, Sept. 1991. Management Review, Briarcliff Manor, v. 35, n. 2, p. 202-225, Apr. 2010. ______; ARAVIND, D. Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes, and antecedents, FREDRICKSON, J. The strategic decision Management and Organization Review, process and organizational structure. Academy [Carlton], v. 8, n. 2, p. 423–454, July 2012. of Management Review, Briarcliff Manor, v. 11, n. 2, p. 280-297, Apr. 1986. ______; EVAN, W. Organizational innovation and performance: the problem GALUNIC, K.; EISENHARDT, K. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. of organizational lag. Administrative Science Academy of Management Journal, New York, Quarterly, Ithaca, v. 29, n. 3, p. 392-402, Sept. v. 44, n. 6, p. 1229-1249, Dec. 2001. 1984. GATIGNON, H. et al. A structural approach ______; SCHNEIDER, M. Characteristics of to assessing innovation: construct development innovation and innovation adoption in public of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. organizations: assessing the role of managers. Management Science, Linthicum, v. 48, n. 9, Journal of Public Administration Research p. 1103-1122, Sept. 2002. and Theory, Oxford, v. 19, n. 3, p. 495-522, July 2009. GILBERT, C. The disruption opportunity. MIT Sloan Management Review, Cambridge, v. 44, ______; SZABAT, K.; EVAN, W. The relationship n. 4, p. 27-32, July 2003. between types of innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, GOPALAKRISHNAN, S. Unravelling the Oxford, v. 26, n. 6, p. 587-602, Nov. 1989. links between dimensions of innovation and organizational performance. The Journal of High ______; WALKER, R.; AVELLANEDA, C. Technology Management Research, [S.l.], v. 11, Combinative effects of innovation types and n. 1, 137-153, Spring 2000. organizational performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management HAN, J.; KIM, N.; SRIVASTAVA, R. Market Studies, Oxford, v. 46, n. 4, p. 650-675, June 2009. orientation and organizational performance: is
597 Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 Peter Yamakawa Tsuja / Jhony Ostos Mariño
innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, validation, and further implication for theory. [S.l.], v. 62, n. 4, p. 30-45, Oct. 1998. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, [S.l.], v. 29, n. 3, p. 321-339, May 2005. HENDERSON, R.; CLARK, K. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing LEE, R. Extending the environment– product technologies and the failure of established strategy–performance framework: the roles of firms.Administrative Science Quarterly, Ithaca, multinational corporation network strength, v. 35, n. 1, p. 9-30, Mar. 1990. market responsiveness, and product innovation. Journal of International Marketing, Chicago, HILL, C.; ROTHAERMEL, F. The performance of v. 18, n. 4, p. 58–73, Dec. 2010. incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovative. Academy of Management Review, LI, H.; ATUAHENE-GIMA, K. Product Briarcliff Manor, v. 28, n. 2, p. 257-274, innovation strategy and the performance of Apr. 2003. new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, New York, v. 44, n. 6, HOSKISSON, R. et al. Conflicting voices: the p. 1123-1134, Dec. 2001. effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation MAHMOOD, I.; MITCHELL, W. Two faces: strategy. Academy of Management Journal, New effects of business groups on innovation in York, v. 45, n. 4, p. 697-716, Aug. 2002. emerging economies. Management Science, INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA Linthicum, v. 50, n. 10, p. 1348-1365, Oct. 2004. E INFORMATICA – INEI (Perú). PBI 1992- ______; RUFIN, C. Government’s dilemma: the 2010. Lima, [2010]. Disponible en:
Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 The Influence of the Environment on Organizational Innovation in Service Companies in Peru
______; QUINN, J.; VOYER, J. El proceso Management Journal, New York, v. 53, n. 5, estratégico. [S.l.]: Prentice Hall Hispanoamericana, p. 1175–1193, Oct. 2010. 1997. SHEREMATA, W. Competing through MISRA, R.; SHARMA, R.; KADAR, H. A innovation in network markets: strategies for case based study of the relationship between challengers. Academy of Management Review, innovation and organizational structure and Briarcliff Manor, v. 29, n. 3, p. 359-377, July architecture. Journal of Academy of Business 2004. and Economics, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 4, p. 198-203, TEGARDEN, L. et al. The engagement of June 2011. employees in the strategy process and firm OLSON, E.; SLATER, S.; HULT, H. The performance: the role of strategic goals and performance implications of fit among business environment. Journal of Business Strategies, strategy, marketing organization structure, and [S.l.], v. 22, n. 2, p.75-99, Sept. 2005. strategic behavior. Journal of Marketing, [S.l.], TELLIS, G.; PRABHU, J.; CHANDY, R. Radical v. 69, n. 3, p. 49-65, July 2005. innovation across nations: the preeminence of PIL, F.; COHEN, S. Modularity: implications for corporate culture. Journal of Marketing, [S.l.], imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. v. 73, n. 1, p. 3-23, Jan. 2009. Academy of Management Review, Briarcliff TIDD, J. Innovation management in context: Manor, v. 31, n. 4, p. 995-1011, Oct. 2006. environment, organization and performance. International Journal of Management Review, QUILES, M. et al. Variables moderadoras Oxford, v. 3, n. 3, p. 169-183, Sept. 2001. y mediadoras de la relación percepción de diferencias-ansiedad intergrupal. Psicothema, TOIVONEN, M. Different types of innovation Oviedo, v. 18, n. 1, p. 105-111, 2006. processes in services and their organizational implications. In: GALLOUJ, F.; DJELLAL, F. RESENDE JUNIOR, P.; GUIMARÃES, T. (Ed.). The handbook of Innovation and services: Inovação em serviços: um estudo de caso em a multi-disciplinary perspective. Northampton: E. uma indústria do setor eletroeletrônico. Revista E. Publishing, 2010. chap. 10, p. 221-249. Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios – RBGN, São Paulo, v. 14, n. 44, p. 293-313, jul./set. 2012. TUSHMAN, M.; NADLER, D. Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, SCHILLING, M.; STEENSMA, H. The use of Berkeley, v. 28, n. 3, p. 74-92, Mar. 1986. modular organization form: an industry-level analysis. Academy of Management Journal, USSAHAWANITCHAKIT, P. Administrative New York, v. 44, n. 6, p. 1149-1169, Dec. 2001. Innovation, Technical Innovation, Competitive Advantage, Competitive Environment, and SEADEN, G. et al. Strategic decisions and Firm Performance of Electronics Businesses in innovation in construction. Construction Thailand. Review of Business Research, [S.l.], Management and Economics, London, v. 21, v. 12, n. 1, p. 1- 10, 2012. n. 6, p. 603-612, 2003. VAN DE VEN, A. Central problems in the SEMADENI, M. ; ANDERSON, B. The management of innovation. Management follower’s dilemma: innovation and imitation in Science, Linthicum, v. 32, n. 5, p. 590-607, Academy of the professional services industry. May 1986. 599 Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013 Peter Yamakawa Tsuja / Jhony Ostos Mariño
WISCHNEVSKY, J.; DAMANPOUR, F. ZHOU, K.; YIM, C.; TSE, D. The effects of Organizational transformation and performance: strategic orientations on technology and market- an examination of three perspectives. Journal based breakthrough innovations. Journal of of Managerial Issues, Pittsburgh, v. 18, n.1, Marketing, [S.l.], v. 69, n. 2, p. 42-60, Apr. 2005. p. 104-128, Spring 2006.
600
Rev. bus. manag., São Paulo, Vol. 15, No. 49, pp. 582-600, Oct./Dec. 2013