Advertisement

Relationship Between Firm’s Performance and Factors Involved in the Selection of Innovation Providers

  • Afnan Zafar
  • Jussi Kantola
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 783)

Abstract

Innovation is the backbone of the product development in present era for the survival of the corporate organization in the respective market. Changing trends in every passing day are making the product development more competitive and innovative. This paper investigates the relationship between firm’s performance with respect to outsourcing innovations and factors affecting the selection of contract research organizations or innovation providers. The research is conducted by a self-designed instrument in the form of a survey form on 112 respondents internationally in 17 countries. The paper will give empirical relationship among firm’s performance, outsourcing innovations and six major factors, which play a vital role in the selection of CROs. Proposed hypotheses in this article are based on empirical relationship, which is validated by SPSS 24. The findings support the conceptual model and offer many managerial implications, which are described in detail at the end of the paper.

Keywords

Innovations Firm’s performance Contract research Organizations Outsourcing 

References

  1. 1.
    Heocht, A., Trott, P.: Innovation risks of strategic outsourcing. Technovation 26(5–6), 672–681 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huselid, M.A., Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S.: Technical and strategic human resources management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Acad. Manag. J. 40(1), 171–188 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gann, D.M., Salter, A.J.: Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems. Res. Policy 29(7–8), 955–972 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laursen, K., Salter, A.: Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strateg. Manage. J. 27(2), 131–150 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R.: In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Manage. Sci. 52(1), 68–82 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hung, K.-P., Chou, C.: The impact of open innovation on firm performance: the moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation 33(10–11), 368–380 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lewin, A.Y., Massini, S., Peeters, C.: Why are companies offshoring innovation? The emerging global race for talent. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 40(6), 901–925 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lichtenthaler, U.: Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining environmental influences. R&D Manage. 39(4), 317–330 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chesbrough, H., Crowther, A.K.: Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Manage. 36(3), 229–236 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stevenson, H.H., Jarillo, J.C.: A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strateg. Manage. J. 11, 17–27 (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dyer, J.H., Singh, H.: The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23(4), 660–679 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santos, J.B., Brito, L.A.L.: Toward a subjective measurement model for firm performance. Braz. Admin. Rev. 9(6), 95–117 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., Alpkan, L.: Effects of innovation types on firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 133, 662–676 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OECD Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edn. (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jin, Z., Hewitt-Dundas, N., Thompson, N.J.: Innovativeness and performance: evidence from manufacturing sectors. J. Strateg. Market. 12(4), 255–266 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R.: The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Newyork (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Littler, D., Leverick, F., Bruce, M.: Factors affecting the process of collaborative product development: a study of UK manufacturers of information and communications technology products. J. Prod. Innov. Manage 12(1), 16–32 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sivadas, E., Dwyer, F.R.: An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. J. Market. 64(1), 31–49 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, Y., Wei, Z., Liu, Y.: Strategic orientations, knowledge acquisition, and firm performance: the perspective of the vendor in cross-border outsourcing. J. Manage. Stud. 47(8), 1457–1482 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liao, Y., Hong, P., Rao, S.: Supply management, supply flexibility and performance outcomes: an empirical investigation of manufacturing firms. J. Supply Chain Manage. 46(3), 6–22 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Camisón, C., López, A.V.: An examination of the relationship between manufacturing flexibility and firm performance: the mediating role of innovation. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 30(8), 853–878 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yam, R.C.M., Lo, W., Tang, E.P.Y., Lau, A.K.W.: Analysis of sources of innovation, technological innovation capabilities, and performance: an empirical study of Hong Kong manufacturing industries. Res. Policy 40(3), 391–402 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coltman, T., Devinney, T.M., Midgley, D.F.: Customer relationship management and firm performance. J. Inf. Technol. 26(3), 205–219 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cao, M., Zhang, Q.: Supply chain collaboration: the impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. J. Oper. Manage. 29(3), 163–180 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Candelin-Palmqvist, H., Sandberg, B., Mylly, U.-M.: Intellectual property rights in innovation management research: a review. Technovation 32(9–10), 502–512 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teece, D.J.: Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 43(2–3), 172–194 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P.S.: Business Research Methods. McGrawHill International Edition, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yang, C., Wacker, J.G., Sheu, C.: What makes outsourcing effective? A transaction-cost economics analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50(16), 4462–4476 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vega-Jurado, J., Gutierrez-Gracia, A., Fernandez-de-Lucio, I., Manjarres-Henríquez, L.: The effect of external and internal factors on firms’ product innovation. Res. Policy 37(4), 616–632 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mc Carthy, I., Anagnostou, A.: The impact of outsourcing on the transaction costs and boundaries of manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 88(1), 61–71 (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frankelius, P.: Questioning two myths in innovation literature. J. High Technol. Manage. Res. 20, 40–51 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chesbrough, H., Bogers, M.: Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. (eds.) New Frontiers in Open Innovation, pp. 3–24 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Richard, P.J., Devinney, T.M., Yip, G.S., Johnson, G.: Measuring organizational performance: towards methodological best practice. J. Manage. 35(3), 718–804 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Technology and InnovationsUniversity of VaasaVaasaFinland

Personalised recommendations