RESEARCH ON BOUNDARY-SPANNING SEARCH AND INNOVATION RESILIENCE IN TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRMS : THE MEDIATING ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL TURBULENCE
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
Against the backdrop of accelerating technological change and growing environmental uncertainty, enhancing the innovation resilience of technology-based firms has become a key pathway to ensuring their sustained competitiveness. This paper systematically explores the mechanism of Boundary-spanning search on innovation resilience and its boundary conditions. From the perspective of knowledge sources, this paper divides Boundary-spanning search into boundary-spanning search for technology.
Knowledge and Boundary-spanning search for market knowledge, and divides innovation resilience into two dimensions: innovation stability and innovation adaptability. The empirical analysis is based on data collected from the Credamo platform. After preliminary testing on a small sample, reliability and validity tests were conducted, and the results showed that the scale has good internal consistency and structural validity. Further using mediation and moderation effect models, the empirical results indicate: (1) Boundary-spanning search significantly and positively influences the innovation resilience of technology-based firms; enterprises with stronger Boundary-spanning search capabilities are better able to maintain the continuity and stability of innovation activities in uncertain environments; (2) Knowledge integration mediates the relationship between Boundary-spanning search and innovation resilience, as heterogeneous knowledge must be integrated to be effectively converted into innovation outcomes; (3) Environmental volatility negatively moderates the relationship between Boundary-spanning search and innovation resilience, meaning that the positive effects of Boundary-spanning search are more easily weakened in unstable environments. This study deepens research on corporate innovation resilience from the perspectives of open innovation and dynamic capabilities, expands the theoretical application space of Boundary-spanning search, and provides targeted management insights for technology-based firms to enhance innovation stability and adaptability in complex environments.
Article Details
อนุญาตภายใต้เงื่อนไข Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
เอกสารอ้างอิง
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–665.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Duncan, R. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313–327.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.
Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5), 325–344.
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019–1039.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
Hillmann, J., & Guenther, E. (2021). Organizational resilience: A valuable construct for management research? International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(1), 7–44.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.
Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. (2001). Capabilities as real options. Organization Science, 12(6), 744–758.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243–255.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.
Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370–386.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Priem, R. L., Li, S., & Carr, J. C. (2012). Insights and new directions from demand-side approaches to technology innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 346–365.
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup. Crown.Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.
Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312–334.
Sheffi, Y. (2005). The resilient enterprise. MIT Press.Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, P. M. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron et al. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 94–110). Berrett-Koehler.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 251–272.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press. Williams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 733–769.
