Radical innovation
Strategic Management Journal
Strat. Mgmt. J., 33: 1090–1102 (2012)
Published online EarlyView in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/smj.1959
Received 29 May 2009; Final revision received 20 January 2012
RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMENTARIES
HOW KNOWLEDGE AFFECTS RADICAL INNOVATION:
KNOWLEDGE BASE, MARKET KNOWLEDGE
ACQUISITION, AND INTERNAL KNOWLEDGE
SHARING
KEVIN ZHENG ZHOU1 * and CAROLINE BINGXIN LI2
1
2
School of Business, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Daniels College of Business, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
This paper examines how existing knowledge base (i.e., knowledge breadth and depth) interacts with knowledge integration mechanisms (i.e., external market knowledge acquisition and internal knowledge sharing) to affect radical innovation. Survey data from high technology companies in China demonstrate that the effects of knowledge breadth and depth are contingent on market knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing in opposite ways. In particular, a firm with a broad knowledge base is more likely to achieve radical innovation in the presence of internal knowledge sharing rather than market knowledge acquisition. In contrast, a firm with a deep knowledge base is more capable of developing radical innovation through market knowledge acquisition rather than internal knowledge sharing. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Radical innovation is the novel, unique, or stateof-the-art technological advance in a product category that significantly alters the consumption patterns in a market (Abernathy and Utterback,
1978; Gatignon et al., 2002). As radical innovation reshapes the competitive landscape and creates new market opportunities, various approaches have been proposed to identify its drivers (e.g.,
Chandy and Tellis, 1998; Smith and Tushman,
2005), among which the knowledge-based view
Keywords: knowledge-based view; knowledge breadth; knowledge depth; radical
Strat. Mgmt. J., 33: 1090–1102 (2012)
Published online EarlyView in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/smj.1959
Received 29 May 2009; Final revision received 20 January 2012
RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMENTARIES
HOW KNOWLEDGE AFFECTS RADICAL INNOVATION:
KNOWLEDGE BASE, MARKET KNOWLEDGE
ACQUISITION, AND INTERNAL KNOWLEDGE
SHARING
KEVIN ZHENG ZHOU1 * and CAROLINE BINGXIN LI2
1
2
School of Business, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Daniels College of Business, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
This paper examines how existing knowledge base (i.e., knowledge breadth and depth) interacts with knowledge integration mechanisms (i.e., external market knowledge acquisition and internal knowledge sharing) to affect radical innovation. Survey data from high technology companies in China demonstrate that the effects of knowledge breadth and depth are contingent on market knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing in opposite ways. In particular, a firm with a broad knowledge base is more likely to achieve radical innovation in the presence of internal knowledge sharing rather than market knowledge acquisition. In contrast, a firm with a deep knowledge base is more capable of developing radical innovation through market knowledge acquisition rather than internal knowledge sharing. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Radical innovation is the novel, unique, or stateof-the-art technological advance in a product category that significantly alters the consumption patterns in a market (Abernathy and Utterback,
1978; Gatignon et al., 2002). As radical innovation reshapes the competitive landscape and creates new market opportunities, various approaches have been proposed to identify its drivers (e.g.,
Chandy and Tellis, 1998; Smith and Tushman,
2005), among which the knowledge-based view
Keywords: knowledge-based view; knowledge breadth; knowledge depth; radical
References: Abernathy WJ, Utterback JM. 1978. Patterns of industrial innovation Afuah A. 1998. Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation, and Profits Ahuja G, Katila R. 2001. Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a Strat. Mgmt. J., 33: 1090–1102 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/smj Ahuja G, Lampert CM. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how Aiken L, West SG. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interaction Atuahene-Gima K. 2005. Resolving the capabilityrigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing 69(4): 61–83. Bierly P, Chakrabarti A. 1996. Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S Chandy RK, Tellis GJ. 1998. Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness Chesbrough HW. 2003. Open Innovation, The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology China Electronic Components Association. 2010. Report. Christensen CM. 2006. The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption Christensen CM, Bower JL. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. DeCarolis DM, Deeds DL. 1999. The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on De Luca LM, Atuahene-Gima K. 2007. Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: examining the different routes to product innovation Einhorn B. 2006. A dragon in R&D. Business Week, 6 November Fornell C, Larcker DF. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and Gatignon H, Tushman ML, Smith W, Anderson P. 2002. Grant RM. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm Hamilton BH, Nickerson JA. 2003. Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Hill CW, Rothaermel FT. 2003. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological Kale P, Dyer JH, Singh H. 2002. Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: Kale P, Singh H. 2007. Building firm capabilities through learning: the role of the alliance learning process Kanter RM. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations Katz N, Du Preez N. 2008. The role of knowledge management in supporting a radical innovation project. Laursen K, Salter A. 2006. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation Levinthal DA, March JG. 1993. The myopia of learning.