Innovation Objectives, Strategies and Firm Performance: A Study of Emerging Market Firms

  • Aniruddha
Conference paper


Emerging market firms pursue multiple innovation objectives to counter the effects of environmental complexity and uncertainty. The innovation objectives so selected define the innovation strategy adopted by the firm. Innovation strategies however are characterised by innovation objective trade-offs based on a collection of positively and negatively impacted objectives. The research identifies the various trade-off baskets for each innovation strategy and the impact of these strategies on the innovation performance of the firm. Firms can accordingly balance the positively and negatively impacted objectives by carefully selecting a suitable strategy and achieve superior innovation performance.


Innovation Performance Domestic Firm Innovation Strategy Innovation Capability Business Model Innovation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Antoncic JA, Antoncic B (2011) Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: a model. Ind Manage Data Syst 111(4):589–607Google Scholar
  2. Barr PS (2004) Current and potential importance of qualitative methods in strategy research. In: Research methodology in strategy and management, vol 1. Elsevier Ltd, Oxford, pp 165–188Google Scholar
  3. Barrell R, Pain N (1997) Foreign direct investment, technological change, and economic growth within Europe. Econ J 107(445):1770–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgelman R, Maidique MA, Wheelwright SC (2004) Strategic management of technology and innovation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Chesbrough H (2008) Orchestrating appropriability: towards an endogenous view of capturing value from innovation investments. In: Shane S (ed) Handbook of technology and innovation management. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  6. Combs JG, Crook TR, Shook CL (2005) The dimensionality of organizational performance and its performance and its implications for strategic management research. In: Research methodology in strategy and management, vol 2. Elsevier Ltd, Amsterdam, pp 259–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Constantine A, Marianne WL (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ Sci 20(4):696–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dess GG, Picken JC (2000) Changing roles: leadership in the 21st century. Organ Dyn 28:18–34Google Scholar
  9. Esteve A, Ramon CM (2010) Open versus closed innovation: a model of discovery and divergence. Acad Manage Rev 35(1):27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eyring MJ, Johnson MW, Nair H (2011) New business models in emerging markets. Harv Bus Rev 89(1/2):88–95, 8p, 2Google Scholar
  11. Girma S, Gong Y, Gorg H (2009) What determines innovation activity in Chinese State-owned enterprises? The role of foreign direct investment. World Dev 37(4):866–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guan JC, Yam RC, Tang EP, Lau AKW (2009) Innovation strategy and performance during economic transition: evidences in Beijing, China. Res Policy 38:802–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrigan KR (2009) Using hybrid research methodologies for testing contingency theories of strategy. In: Research methodology in strategy and management, vol 5. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 121–136Google Scholar
  14. Hill CWL, Rothaermel TF (2003) The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad Manage Rev 28(2):257–274Google Scholar
  15. Hope J (2009) Performance management in the innovation age: An introduction. Innovation in Action Series. IBM Cognos Innovation Center for Performance Management. Copyright IBM Corporation 2009Google Scholar
  16. Johnstone N, Haščič I, Popp D (2010) Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: evidence based on patent counts. Environ Resourc Econ 45(1):133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones GK, Lanctot A, Teegen HJ (2001) Determinants and performance impacts of external technology acquisition. J Bus Ventur 16(3):255–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lawson B, Samson D (2001) Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic capability approach. Int J Innov Manage 5(3):377–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leiponen A, Helfat CE (2010) Innovation objectives, knowledge sources and the benefits of breadth. Strateg Manage J 31:224–236Google Scholar
  20. Li Y, Guo H, Liu Y, Li M (2008) Incentive mechanisms, entrepreneurial orientation, and technology commercialization: evidence from China’s transitional economy. J Prod Innov Manage 25:63–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miles RE, Snow CC (1978) Organizational strategy, structure, and process. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Moshe F (2010) Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Acad Manage Rev 35(2):202–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nieto MJ, Santamaría L (2010) Technological collaboration: bridging the innovation gap between small and large firms. J Small Bus Manage 48(1):44–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Cass A, Weerawardena J (2009) Examining the role of international entrepreneurship, innovation and international market performance in SME internationalisation. Eur J Mark 43(11/12):1325–1348, 24pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parrish ED, Cassill NL, Oxenham W (2006) Niche market strategy for a mature marketplace. Mark Intell Plann 24(7):694–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prajogo DI, Sohal AS (2003) The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance, and innovation performance: an empirical examination. Int J Qual Reliab Manage 20(8):901–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rehman IH, Kar A, Raven R, Singh D, Tiwari J, Jha R, Sinha PK, Mirza A (2010) Rural energy transitions in developing countries: a case of the Uttam Urja initiative in India. Environ Sci Policy 13(4):303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanchez R (1995) Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strateg Manage J 16:135–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shaver JM (2007) Interpreting empirical results in strategy and management research. In: Research methodology in strategy and management, vol 4. Elsevier Ltd, Amsterdam, pp 273–293Google Scholar
  30. Simsek Z, Veiga JF, Lubatkin MH (2005) Challenges and guidelines for conducting internet based surveys in strategic management research. In: Research methodology in strategy and management, vol 2. Elsevier Ltd, Amsterdam, pp 179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Slater SF, Atuahene-Gima K (2004) Conducting survey research in strategic management. In: Research methodology in strategy and management, vol 1. Elsevier Ltd, Burlington, pp 227–249Google Scholar
  32. Song M, Droge C, Hanvanich S, Calantone R (2005) Marketing and technology resource complementarity: an analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strateg Manage J 26:259–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manage J 28(13):1319–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tidd J (2001) Innovation management in context: environment, organization and performance. Int J Manage Rev 3(3):169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tolstoy D, Agndal H (2010) Network resource combinations in the international venturing of small biotech firms. Technovation 30(1):24–36, 13pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tomovic CL, Ncube LB, Walton A, Grieves M (2010) Development of product lifecycle management metrics: measuring the impact of PLM. Int J Manuf Technol Manage 19(3–4):167–179Google Scholar
  37. Tsai M, Tsai C (2010) Innovation capability and performance in Taiwanese science parks: exploring the moderating effects of industrial clusters fabric. Int J Organ Innov 2:80–103Google Scholar
  38. Tsai Y, Lin JY, Kurekova L (2009) Innovative R&D and optimal investment under uncertainty in high-tech industries: an implication for emerging economies. Res Policy 38:1388–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manage Rev 38:8–30Google Scholar
  40. Utterback JM, Abernathy WJ (1975) A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3(6):639–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Voss GB, Sirdeshmukh D, Voss JG (2008) The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Acad Manage J 51(1):147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang CL, Ahmed PK (2007) Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda. Int J Manage Rev 9(1):31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Woertera M, Roper S (2010) Openness and innovation—home and export demand effects on manufacturing innovation: panel data evidence for Ireland and Switzerland. Res Policy 39(1):155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yam RC, Lo W, Tang EP, Lau AK (2011) Analysis of sources of innovation, technological innovation capabilities, and performance: an empirical study of Hong Kong manufacturing industries. Res Policy 40:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhou KZ, Wu F (2010) Technological capability, strategic flexibility and product innovation. Strateg Manage J 31:547–561Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Strategic Management GroupIndian Institute of ManagementLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations