Author:
Olaru Doina,Purchase Sharon
Abstract
Purpose
– This article aims to describe patterns of change in innovation networks and to clarify the roles of time and history in shaping network trajectories. The authors test seven predictor variables and their interactions to examine their influences on network performance over time.
Design/methodology/approach
– A fuzzy simulation of innovation networks and investigations of different network types, using two classes of growth modeling techniques, help refine understanding of innovation as an interactive, developmental process.
Findings
– Innovation network trajectories are influenced by self-reinforcing, contradictory and damaging forces. History affects network trajectory development, particularly with regard to financial resource access. The temporal processes reveal three contrasting classes of developmental trajectories for innovation networks.
Research limitations/implications
– The study methodology can account for theoretically derived factors leading to innovation, in and across types of networks and for changes over time; it moves beyond a cross-sectional approach. Although the model structure is generic, the parameters are based on a radical innovation, so the findings may not transfer directly.
Practical implications
– Managers in innovation business networks can use the identified variables to improve network performance, by facilitating processes that inject financial capital and integrating heterogeneous skills that focus on a wider variety of skills that generate both exploratory and exploitative knowledge development.
Originality/value
– This article contributes to discourses on network trajectories through an analysis of processes that influence the growth and decline of innovation business network performance. An original methodology generates and analyzes dynamic longitudinal network data.
Subject
Marketing,Business and International Management
Reference60 articles.
1. Aarikka-Stenroos, L.
and
Sandberg, B.
(2012), “From new-product development to commercialization through networks”,
Journal of Business Research
, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 198-206.
2. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics)
(2012), “Microdata: business longitudinal database, Australia, 2004-05 to 2009-10”, Catalogue number 8168.0.55.001, Canberra, available at: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8168.0.55.001 (accessed 30 March 2013).
3. Andriani, P.
(2011), “Complexity and innovation”, in
Allen, P.
,
Maguire, S.
and
McKelvey, B.
(Eds),
The Sage Handbook of Complexity and Management
, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 454-470.
4. Araujo, L.
and
Harrison, D.
(2002), “Path dependence, agency and technological evolution”,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management
, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 5-19.
5. Arthur, W.B.
(1989), “Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events”,
The Economic Journal
, Vol. 99 No. 394, pp. 116-131.
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献