Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Product–process matrix and complementarity approach

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relationship between different types of innovation is analysed from three different approaches. On the one hand, the distinctive view assumes that the determinants of each type of innovation are different and therefore there is no relationship between them. On the other hand, the integrative view considers that the different types of innovation are complementary. Finally, the product–process matrix framework suggests that the relationship between product innovation and process innovation is substitutive. Using data from Spain belonging to the Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC) for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, we tested which of the three approaches is predominant. To perform the hypothesis test, we used the so-called complementarity approach. We find that there is no unique relation. The nature of the relationship depends on the types of innovation that interact. Our most significant finding is that the relationship between product innovation and process innovation is complementary. This finding contradicts the proposal of the product–process matrix framework. Consequently, the joint implementation of both types of innovation generates a greater impact on the performance of a company than the sum of their separate implementations.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Usually, the lean and flexible organizational structures are more abundant in organizations that perform basic research, for this reason this kind of organizations also exhibit a greater propensity to innovate in product. For example, the study of Barbero et al. (2014), based on the Spanish economy, analyzes the innovative behavior of four different types of incubator (basic research, university, economic development and private). The basic research incubator is the one that generates more product innovations. Specifically, 45.9 % of companies belonging to basic research incubator have made product innovation. The type of incubator that is closest reached the figure of 22.2 %.

References

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Townsend, P. L. (1975). Technology, productivity, and process change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Re-creating the corporation: A design of organizations for the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2002). Refining the product–process matrix. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(1), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariss, S. S., & Zhang, Q. Y. (2002). The impact of flexible process capability on the product–process matrix: An empirical examination. Production Economics, 76, 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo-Gutiérrez, L. M., & Jiménez-Partearroyo, M. (2013). Mass customization within the company’s competitive framework. Dirección y Organización, 49, 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athey, S., & Stern, S. (1998). An empirical framework for testing theories about complementarity in organizational design. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Market orientation and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 35(2), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Bozeman, B., Combs, K. L., Feldman, M., Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., et al. (2002). The economics of science and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(2), 155–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J., Hanel, P., & Sabourin, D. (2002). Determinants of innovative activity in Canadian manufacturing firms. In A. Kleinknecht & P. Mohnen (Eds.), Innovation and firm performance (pp. 86–111). New York: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ballot, G., Fakhfakh, F., Galia, F., & Salter, A. (2015). The fateful triangle. Complementarities between product, process and organizational innovation in the UK and France. Research Policy, 44(1), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbero, J. L., Casillas, J. C., Wright, M., & Ramos, A. (2014). Do different types of incubators produce different types of innovations? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battisti, G., & Stoneman, P. (2010). How innovative are UK firms? Evidence from the fourth UK Community Innovation Survey on synergies between technological and organizational innovations. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessler, W., & Bittelmeyer, C. (2008). Patents and the performance of technology firms: Evidence from initial public offerings in Germany. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, 22(4), 323–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(6), 424–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2002). Patents, real options and firm performance. The Economic Journal, 112(478), C97–C116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, K. K., Leong, G. K., Ward, P. T., & Krajewski, L. J. (1997). Unlocking the potential of advanced manufacturing technologies. Journal of Operations Management, 15(4), 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M., Lokshin, B., & Belderbos, R. (2011). A note on testing for complementarity and substitutability in the case of multiple practices. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 35, 263–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1996). Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: The case of process and product R&D. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(2), 232–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., Doganova, L., Piva, E., D’Adda, D., & Mustar, P. (2015). Hybrid alliances and radical innovation: The performance implications of integrating exploration and exploitation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(4), 696–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, C., & Van Wassenhove, L. (1993). Trade-offs/what trade-offs? Competence and competitiveness in manufacturing strategy. California Management Review, 35(4), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzarin, B. P. (2015). Impact of organizational innovation on product & process innovation. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2604281 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2604281.

  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (2010). An integration of research findings of effects of firm size and market competition on product and process innovations. British Journal of Management, 21(4), 996–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of “Organizational Lag”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 392–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. A., & Evan, W. M. (1989). The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 26(6), 587–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competencies. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1095–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, J. W, Jr, & Snell, S. A. (1996). The strategic use of integrated manufacturing: An empirical examination. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6), 459–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Guardo, M Ch., & Harrigan, K. R. (2012). Mapping research on strategic alliances and innovation: A co-citation analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 789–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennen, E., & Richter, A. (2010). The whole is more the sum of its parts—Or is it? A review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of Management, 36(1), 207–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista, R., & Vezzani, A. (2010). The economic impact of technological and organizational innovations. A firm-level analysis. Research Policy, 39(10), 1253–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Meschede, M. (2001). Product innovation, process innovation, and size. Review of Industrial Organization, 19, 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1979a). Link manufacturing process and product life cycles. Harvard Business Review, 57(1), 133–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1979b). The dynamics of process–product life cycles. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 127–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervas-Oliver, J. L., Sempere-Ripoll, F., & Boronat-Moll, C. (2014). Process innovation strategy in SMEs, organizational innovation and performance: A misleading debate? Small Business Economics, 43, 873–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 479–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T., Snow, C. C., & Kandemir, D. (2003). The role of entrepreneurship in building cultural competitiveness in different organizational types. Journal of Management, 29(3), 401–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1997). The performance effects of process management techniques. Management Science, 43(4), 522–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knott, A. M. (2001). The dynamic value of hierarchy. Management Science, 47(3), 430–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, K. (1990). Are product and process innovations independent of each other? Applied Economics, 22(8), 1029–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2005). A model of middle-level managers’ entrepreneurial Behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, 29(6), 699–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2005). Organizational innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Bas, Ch., Mothe, C., & Nguyen-Thi, T. U. (2015). The differentiated impacts of organizational innovation practices on technological innovation persistence. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(1), 110–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1123–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Ren, F. (2007). Product innovation and process innovation in SOEs: Evidence from the Chinese transition. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(1–2), 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, H., & Zhang, Z. (2012). The effects of industry characteristics on the sources of technological product and process innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 867–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lokshin, B., van Gils, A., & Bauer, E. (2008). Crafting firm competencies to improve innovative performance. Working paper, UNU-MERIT—United Nations University—Maastricht Economic and social Research and Training Centre on Innovation and Technology, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

  • Marcus, A. A. (1988). Responses to externally induced innovation: Their effects on organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 387–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Ros, E., & Labeaga, J. (2009). Product and process innovation: Persistence and complementarities. European Management Review, 6(1), 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, C. M., Greis, N. P., & Fischer, W. A. (1997). The diminishing utility of the product/process matrix—A study of the US power tool industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(1), 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organization. American Economic Review, 80, 511–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miravete, E., & Pernias, J. (2006). Innovation complementarity and scale of production. Journal of Industrial Economics, 54(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohnen, P., & Röller, L. (2005). Complementarities in innovation policy. European Economic Review, 49(6), 1431–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, M. J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1269–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mothe, C., Nguyen-Thib, U. T., & Nguyen-Vanc, P. (2015). Assessing complementarity in organizational innovations for technological innovation: The role of knowledge management practices. Applied Economics, 47(29), 3040–3058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005). The measurement of scientific and technological activities—Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. Oslo Manual. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. P., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1995). The new logic of high-tech R&D. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 93–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polder, M., & Van Leeuwen, G., & Mohnen, P. & Raymond, W. (2010). Product, process and organizational innovation: Drivers, complementarity, and productivity effects. MPRA Paper 23719, University Library of Munich, Germany.

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin, J. W. (2000). Imitation of complex strategies. Management Science, 46(6), 824–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P. W., & Amit, R. (2003). The Dynamics of innovative activity and competitive advantage: The case of australian retail banking, 1981 to 1995. Organization Science, 14(2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safizadeh, M. H., Ritzman, L. P., Sharma, D., & Wood, C. (1996). An empirical analysis of the product–process matrix. Management Science, 42(11), 1576–1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapprasert, K., & Clausen, T. H. (2012). Organizational innovation and its effects. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1283–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A. (2005). Strategic management of technological innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, T., & Rammer, C. (2007). Non-technological and technological innovation. In ZEW (Ed.), Discussion paper: Centre for European Economic Research.

  • Tiantian, G., Yezhuang, T., & Weina, L. (2013). The impact of competitive intensity of product–process matrix: An empirical study. In Proceedings 6th international conference on information management, innovation management and industrial engineering, ICIII 2013. IEEE Catalog Number CFP1320F-POD, Xi’an, China.

  • Topkis, D. M. (1978). Minimizing a submodular function on a lattice. Operations Research, 26(2), 305–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3, 639–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. M. (2004). Innovation and organizational performance: Evidence and a research agenda. AIM Research Working Paper, Advanced Institute for Management Research, London.

  • Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E., & Conyon, M. (1999). Change and complementarities in the new competitive landscape: A European panel study, 1992–1996. Organization Science, 10(5), 583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1991). The machine that changed the world: The story of lean production. New York: Harper-Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Facultad de Estudios Empresariales y Turismo, Universidad de Extremadura, Avda. de la Universidad s/n, 10004, Cáceres, Spain

    Manuel Guisado-González

  2. The Business School, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, HD1 3DH, Huddersfield, UK

    Len Tiu Wright

  3. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Vigo, Campus de Vigo, 36310, Vigo, Spain

    Manuel Guisado-Tato

Authors
  1. Manuel Guisado-González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Len Tiu Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel Guisado-Tato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Guisado-Tato.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guisado-González, M., Wright, L. & Guisado-Tato, M. Product–process matrix and complementarity approach. J Technol Transf 42, 441–459 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9435-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9435-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation