Information Technology and Management

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 75–87 | Cite as

IT capabilities for product innovation in SMEs: a configurational approach

  • Louis Raymond
  • Sylvestre Uwizeyemungu
  • Bruno Fabi
  • Josée St-Pierre


With the advent of globalization and the knowledge-based economy, industrial SMEs must constantly innovate to remain competitive. Now, an important research issue in this regard concerns the role played by IT capabilities in enabling innovation processes such as new product development, and in determining the product innovation performance of these organizations. Using a configurational approach grounded in the resource-based view, contingency theory, and the notions of “fit” and equifinality, we argue that IT capabilities can be leveraged for innovation purposes to the extent that they are coaligned and thus constitute IT capability configurations. This paper presents the results of a survey of 588 Canadian industrial SMEs designed to further analyze this issue. Three IT capability configurations were thus empirically identified, that is, IT Defenders (n = 234), IT Analyzers (n = 91) and IT Prospectors (n = 263), the last two being associated to greater product innovation performance.


IT capability Product innovation Innovation performance Capability configuration Fit Equifinality SME 



Funding was provided by SSHRC (Grant No. 890-2011-0153).


  1. 1.
    Aragón-Sánchez A, Sánchez-Marín G (2005) Strategic orientation, management characteristics, and performance: a study of Spanish SMEs. J Small Bus Manag 43(3):287–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atuahene-Gima K, Li H (2004) Strategic decision comprehensiveness and new product development outcomes in new technology ventures. Acad Manag J 47(4):583–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Audretsch DB (1995) Innovation and industry evolution. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babbie ER (2009) The basics of social research, 5th edn. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banker RD, Bardhan IR, Chang H, Lin S (2006) Plant information systems, manufacturing capabilities, and plant performance. MIS Q 30(2):315–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banker RD, Bardhan I, Asdemir O (2006) Understanding the impact of collaboration software on product design and development. Inf Syst Res 17(4):352–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barczak G, Hultink EJ, Sultan F (2008) Antecedents and consequences of information technology usage in NPD: a comparison of Dutch and U.S. companies. J Prod Innov Manag 25:620–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berends H, Jelinek M, Reymen I, Stultiëns R (2014) Product innovation processes in small firms: combining entrepreneurial effectuation and managerial causation. J Prod Innov Manag 31(3):616–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bergeron F, Raymond L, Rivard S (2004) Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance. Inf Manag 41(8):1003–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bharadwaj AS (2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Q 24(1):169–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhatt GD, Grover V (2005) Types of information technology capabilities and their role in competitive advantage: an empirical study. J Manag Inf Syst 22(2):253–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bhatt G, Emdad A, Roberts N, Grover V (2010) Building and leveraging information in dynamic environments: the role of IT infrastructure flexibility as enabler of organizational responsiveness and competitive advantage. Inf Manag 47:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bollen K, Lennox R (1991) Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychol Bull 110:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cassivi L, Lefebvre E, Lefebvre LA, Léger P-M (2004) The impact of e-collaboration tools on firms’ performance. Int J Logist Manag 15(1):91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chan YE, Horner Reich B (2007) IT alignment: what have we learned? J Inf Technol 22:297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen C-J (2007) Information technology, organizational structure, and new product development—the mediating effect of cross-functional team interaction. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 54(4):687–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chiasson MW, Davidson E (2005) Taking industry seriously in information systems research. MIS Q 29(4):591–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crossan MM, Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovations: a systematic review of the literature. J Manag Stud 47(6):1154–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cunha MP, Rego A, Oliveira P, Rosado P, Habib N (2014) Product innovation in resource-poor environments: three research streams. J Prod Innov Manag 31(2):202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Di Benedetto CA, DeSarbo WS, Song M (2008) Strategic capabilities and radical innovation: an empirical study in three countries. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 55(3):420–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Doty DH, Glick WH, Huber GP (1993) Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories. Acad Manag J 36(6):1196–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Durmoşoğlu SS, Barczak G (2011) The use of information technology tools in new product development phases: analysis of effects on new product innovativeness, quality, and market performance. Ind Mark Manag 40:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fiss PC (2007) A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1180–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garcia R, Calantone R (2002) A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. J Prod Innov Manag 19:110–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garud R, Tuertscher P, Van de Ven AH (2013) Perspectives on innovation processes. Acad Manag Ann 7(1):775–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gresov C (1989) Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contingencies. Adm Sci Q 34:431–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gresov C, Drazin R (1997) Equifinality: functional equivalence in organization design. Acad Manag Rev 22(2):403–428Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harms R, Krauz S, Schwarz E (2009) The suitability of the configuration approach in entrepreneurship research. Entrep Reg Dev 21(1):25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hatzichronoglou T (1997) Revision of the high-technology sector and product classification. In: OECD science, technology and industry working papers, 1997/02. OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hill J, Scott T (2004) A consideration of the roles of business intelligence and e-business in management and marketing decision making in knowledge-based and high-tech start-ups. Qual Market Res Int J 7(1):48–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hobday M (2005) Firm-level innovation models: perspectives on research in developed and developing countries. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 17(2):121–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Joshi KD, Chi L, Datta A, Han S (2010) Changing the competitive landscape: continuous innovation through IT-enabled knowledge capability. Inf Syst Res 21(3):472–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Karlsson C, Olsson O (1998) Product innovation in small and large enterprises. Small Bus Econ 10:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kawakami T, Durmoşoğlu SS, Barczak G (2011) Factors influencing information technology usage for new product development: the case of Japanese companies. J Prod Innov Manag 28:833–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ketchen DJ Jr, Shook CL (1996) The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: an analysis and critique. Strateg Manag J 17:441–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    King WR (2007) IT strategy and innovation: recent innovations in knowledge management. Inf Syst Manag 24(1):91–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Klein J, Gee D, Jones H (1998) Analysing clusters of skills in R&D—core competencies, metaphors, visualization, and the role of IT. R&D Manag 28(1):37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kok RAW, Biemans WG (2009) Creating a market-oriented product innovation process: a contingency approach. Technovation 29:517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kotha S, Swamidass PM (2000) Strategy, advanced manufacturing technology and performance: empirical evidence from U.S. manufacturing firms. J Oper Manag 18(3):257–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kraaijenbrink J, Spender J-C, Groen AJ (2010) The resource-based view: a review and assessment of its critiques. J Manag 36(1):349–372Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Levy M, Powell P (2003) Exploring SME Internet adoption: towards a contingent model. Electronic Markets 13(2):173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Marion TJ, Meyer MH, Barczak G (2015) The influence of digital design and IT on modular product architecture. J Prod Innov Manag 32(1):98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Martínez-Senra AI, Quintás MA, Sartal A, Vázquez XH (2015) How can firms’ basic research turn into product innovation? The role of absorptive capacity and industry appropriability. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 62(2):205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mata FJ, Fuerst WL, Barney M (1995) Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based analysis. MIS Q 19(4):487–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Merminod V, Rowe F (2012) How does PLM technology support knowledge transfer and translation in new product development? Transparency and boundary spanners in an international context. Inf Organ 22:295–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Meyer AD, Tsui AS, Hinings CR (1993) Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Acad Manag J 36(6):1175–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Miles RE, Snow CC (2003) Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Miller D (1996) Configurations revisited. Strateg Manag J 17(7):505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Miller D (1999) Notes on the study of configurations. Manag Int Rev 39(2):27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Miller D, Dröge C (1986) Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Adm Sci Q 31:539–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Miller D, Eisenstat R, Foote N (2002) Strategy from the inside out: building capability-creating organizations. Calif Manag Rev 44(3):37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    OECD (2005) Oslo manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 3rd edn. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    OECD (2005) OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2005. OCDE Publishing, Paris.
  55. 55.
    OECD (2010) SMEs, entrepreneurship and innovation, OECD studies on SMEs and entrepreneurship. OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Overby E, Bharadwaj A, Sambamurthy V (2006) Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology. Eur J Inf Syst 15(2):120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pavlou PA, El Sawy OA (2006) From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: the case of new product development. Inf Syst Res 17(3):198–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pavlou PA, El Sawy OA (2011) Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decis Sci 42(1):239–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Payne GT (2006) Examining configurations and firm performance in a suboptimal equifinality context. Organ Sci 17(6):756–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pennings JM (1975) The relevance of structural-contingency model for organizational effectiveness. Adm Sci Q 20:393–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Poole MS, Van de Ven AH, Dooley K, Holmes ME (2000) Organizational change and innovation processes: theories and methods for research. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Prajogo D, Olhager J (2012) Supply chain integration and performance: the effects of long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration. Int J Prod Econ 135:514–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rai A, Tang X, Brown P, Keil M (2006) Assimilation patterns in the use of electronic procurement innovations: a cluster analysis. Inf Manag 43:336–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Raymond L, Croteau A-M (2009) Manufacturing strategy and business strategy in medium-sized enterprises: performance effects of strategic alignment. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 56(2):192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Raymond L, St-Pierre J (2010) R&D as a determinant of innovation in manufacturing SMEs: an attempt at empirical clarification. Technovation 30(1):48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Reitzig M, Puranam P (2009) Value appropriation as an organizational capability: the case of IP protection through patents. Strateg Manag J 30:765–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rivard S, Raymond L, Verreault D (2006) Resource-based view and competitive strategy: an integrated model of the contribution of information technology to firm performance. J Strateg Inf Syst 15(1):29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Q 27(2):237–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Santhanam R, Hartono E (2003) Issues in linking information technology capability to firm performance. MIS Q 27(1):125–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Song M, Berends H, van der Bij H, Weggeman M (2007) The effect of IT and co-location on knowledge dissemination. J Prod Innov Manag 24:52–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Song LZ, Song M (2010) The role of information technologies in enhancing R&D-marketing integration: an empirical investigation. J Prod Innov Manag 27:382–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tatikonda MV, Montoya-Weiss MM (2001) Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation: the influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development performance. Manag Sci 47(1):151–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Terziovski M (2007) Building innovation capability in organizations: an international cross-case perspective. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Thornhill S (2006) Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high- and low-technology regimes. J Bus Ventur 21:687–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Tushman M, Nadler DA (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organization design. Acad Manag Rev 3(3):613–624Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Uwizeyemungu S, Raymond L (2012) Impact of an ERP system’s capabilities upon the realisation of its business value: a resource-based perspective. Inf Technol Manag 13(2):69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Van de Ven AH, Drazin R (1985) The concept of fit in contingency theory. Res Organ Behav 7:333–365Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Venkatraman N (1989) The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Acad Manag Rev 14(3):423–444Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wade M, Hulland J (2004) The resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension and suggestions for future research. MIS Q 28(1):107–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Watson J (2007) Modeling the relationship between networking and firm performance. J Bus Ventur 22:852–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Westerman G, Curley M (2008) Building IT-enabled innovation capabilities at Intel. MIS Q Executive 7(1):33–48Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Whelan E, Teigland R, Donnellan B, Golden W (2010) How internet technologies impact information flows in R&D: reconsidering the technological gatekeeper. R&D Manag 40(4):400–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Yoo Y, Henfridsson O, Lyytinen K (2010) Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Inf Syst Res 21(4):724–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Zahra SA, George G (2002) The net-enabled business innovation cycle and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Inf Syst Res 13(2):147–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zhang T, Ramakrishnon R, Livny M (1996) BIRCH: an efficient data clustering method for very large databases. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD conference on management of data, Montreal, pp 103–114Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Zhu K (2004) The complementarity of information technology infrastructure and e-commerce capability: a resource-based assessment of their business value. J Manag Inf Syst 21(1):167–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Zhu K, Kreamer K (2000) e-Commerce metrics for net-enhanced organizations: assessing the value of e-commerce to firm performance in the manufacturing sector. Inf Syst Res 18(5):463–475Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis Raymond
    • 1
  • Sylvestre Uwizeyemungu
    • 1
  • Bruno Fabi
    • 1
  • Josée St-Pierre
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de recherche sur les PMEUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresTrois-RivièresCanada

Personalised recommendations