Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

TBIC (ToP and BoP Interfaces Capabilities): Case for SMEs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rising Asia and American Hegemony

  • 570 Accesses

Abstract

How can individuals and firms seek a new source of radical innovation? Necessity is a mother of invention. In a sense, the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) markets provide huge opportunities for “creating awareness, access, affordability, and availability” of products and services. Innovation outcomes achieved in BoP markets may turn out to be “dramatic changes in value, use of hybrid technologies, lean management, market development, deskilling of work, collaboration with NGOs and the public sector, and distribution and logistics in hostile conditions” (Prahalad in J Prod Innov Manag 29(1):6–12, 2012). This chapter discusses the importance of TBIC (ToP and BoP Interfaces Capabilities) in SMEs. It is crucial to manage interfaces between Top of Pyramid (ToP) and Base of Pyramid (BoP) for the global competitiveness for individual firms. This chapter discusses how small and medium enterprises (SMEs) expand their market scope in emerging economies. Through the case of Ace Technology, we will look at TBIC (ToP and BoP Interfaces Capabilities) in SMEs, and look for strategic issues to be solved for future growth and future directions.

…..breakthrough innovations …in BOP markets can often be leveraged in developed markets. The lessons that they learn in BOP markets……are the qualities that will serve them well in becoming globally competitive. (Prahalad 2012).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78(4), 680–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior. In B. M. Straw & L. L. Cummings. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press (pp. 165–198).

    Google Scholar 

  • Altenburg, T., Schmitz, H., & Stamm, A. (2008). Breakthrough? China’s and India’s transition from production to innovation. World Development, 36(2), 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bala Subrahmanya, M. (2005). Pattern of technological innovations in small enterprises: A comparative perspective of Bangalore (India) and Northeast England (UK). Technovation, 25(3), 269–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. R. (2000). Innovation and training in new firms (No. 123). Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, M., & Diez, R. (2006). Technological capabilities and innovation in Southeast Asia. Science Technology & Society, 11(1), 109–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, C. S., & Simons, L. M. (2009). The forgotten front. Foreign Affairs, 88(6), 52–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budhwar, P. (2001). Doing business in India. Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(4), 549–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaminade, C., & Vang, J. (2008). Globalisation of knowledge production and regional innovation policy: Supporting specialized hubs in the Bangalore software industry. Research Policy, 37(10), 1684–1696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S., & Lee, K. (2000). Complementarity, status similarity, and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S., & Kim, M. (2003). Performance effects of partnership between manufacturers and suppliers for new product development: The supplier’s standpoint. Research Policy, 32(4), 587–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, D., & Kim, L. (2002). Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability formation. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1417–1429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). A knowledge-based theory of Inter-firm collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, Best papers proceedings, 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and Inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauge, E., & Havnes, P.-A. (2001). Internationalization by choice or by necessity? Unpublished case study. Workshop on globalizing European SMEs in the world trade system, Palermo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1984). Restoring our competitive edge—Competing through manufacturing. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M., & Mathews, A. (2005). National innovative capacity in East Asia. Research Policy, 34(9), 1322–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, X., et al. (2002). New product development processes in small and medium-sized enterprises: Some Australian evidence. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R. L., & McArthur, A. W. (1994). Contracting strategies in entrepreneurial and established firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julian, C. O., & Cass, A. (2004). The impact of firm and environmental characteristics on international joint venture (IJV) marketing performance in Thailand. Thunderbird International Business Review, 46(4), 359–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M. U. (1998). A comparison of the electronics industry of India and Korea. Technovation, 18(2), 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karagozoglu, N., & Lindell, M. (1998). Internationalization of small and medium-sized technology-based firms: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Management, 36, 44–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D., Kandemir, D., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). The role of family conglomerates in emerging markets: What Western companies should know. Thunderbird International Business Review, 46(1), 13–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Lee, B. (2002). Patterns of technological learning among the strategic groups in the Korean Electronic Parts Industry. Research Policy, 31(4), 543–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Value innovation: A leap into the blue ocean. Journal of Business Strategy, 26(4), 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., & Jain, P. (2003). Commercialization of new technologies in India: An empirical study of perceptions of technology institutions. Technovation, 23(2), 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leavy, B. (2005). Value pioneering–how to discover your own “blue ocean”: Interview with W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne Brian Leavy the Authors. Planning Review, 33(6), 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., & Sung, T. (2005). Schumpeter’s legacy: A new perspective on the relationship between firm size and R&D. Research Policy, 34(6), 914–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. (2009a). Competition favors the prepared firm: Firms’ R&D responses to competitive market pressure. Research Policy, 38(5), 861–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. (2009b). Do firms in clusters invest in R&D more intensively? Theory and evidence from multi-country data. Research Policy, 38(7), 1159–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Lim, C. (2001). Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: Findings from the Korean industries. Research Policy, 30(3), 459–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, I. P., & Singh, J. (2003). Technological dynamism in Asia. Research Policy, 32(6), 1031–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosey, S. (2005). Understanding new-to-market product development in SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management., 25(2), 114–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosey, S., Clare, J. N., & Woodcock, D. J. (2002). Innovation decision making in British manufacturing SMEs. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(3), 176–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mu, Q., & Lee, K. (2005). Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China. Research Policy, 34(6), 759–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namiki, N. (1988). Export strategy for small Business. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, K., & Bhat, S. (2009). Technology sourcing and its determinants: A study of basic chemical industry in India. Technovation, 29(8), 562–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, C. (2005). The global chess game … or is it go? Market-entry strategies for emerging markets. Thunderbird International Business Review, 47(4), 397–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nohria, N., & Garcia-Pont, C. (1991). Global strategic linkages and industry structure. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 105–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2015). Sourcing for the base of the pyramid: Constructing supply chains to address voids in subsistence markets. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. (2012). Bottom of the Pyramid as a source of breakthrough innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravichandran, T. (1999). Redefining organizational innovation. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 10(2), 243–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakakibara, M., & Cho, D. (2002). Cooperative R&D in Japan and Korea: A comparison of industrial policy. Research Policy, 31(5), 673–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salavou, H., et al. (2003). Organisational innovation in SMEs. European Journal of Marketing, 38(9–10), 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheela, W., & Van Dinh, N. (2001). Doing business in Vietnam. Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(5), 669–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, W. (1986). The productivity paradox. Harvard Business Review, 64, 55–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souder, W. E., & Sherman, J. D. (1994). Managing new technology development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, J. J. (2001). Japanese multinationals: How different are they? Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(2), 329–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tödtling, F., & Kaufmann, A. (1999). Innovation systems in regions in Europe—A comparative perspective. European Planning Studies, 7(6), 699–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, P. F., & Rondinelli, A. (2001). Thailand: Opportunities and risks in a fast-changing business environment. Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(6), 797–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winch, G., & Bianchi, C. (2006). Drivers and dynamic processes for SMEs going global. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(1), 73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wind, J., & Mahajan, V. (1997). Editorial: Issues and opportunities in new product development: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

Other Korean Source

  • Ace Technology, Research Centered Management, Maeil Business, 2001.01.25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Electronic Times, [Moments of Decision] President Kwan Kung Ace Technologies, 2005.08.01-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good Morning Shinhan Securities, Ace Technology (032930) Analysis, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Incheon Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Ace Technologies: Global Top Class RF Company, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joong Ang Ilbo, [Inofast 15] Ace Technology, Nov. 24, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Electromagnetic Engineering Society, Membership Visitor: Ace Antenna System Research Center, Journal of the Korean Institute of Electromagnetic Engineering and Science, Vol.20, No.2, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Enterprise Data, Ace Technologies Inc. Analysis, www.cretop.com.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Innovation, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA

    Prof. Paul Hong

  2. Faculty of Economics, Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Saitama University, Saitama, Japan

    Prof. Young Won Park

Authors
  1. Prof. Paul Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Young Won Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Hong .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hong, P., Park, Y.W. (2020). TBIC (ToP and BoP Interfaces Capabilities): Case for SMEs. In: Rising Asia and American Hegemony. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7635-1_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation