Skip to main content

Sufficient Conditions that Lead to Synergistic Innovations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Value in Business

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

  • 976 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter, which is mainly based on (Forrest et al., 2019, Proceedings of the 2019 Annual Conference of Decision Sciences Institute (pp. 2061–2080)), investigates issues related to the following questions: (1) how can producer-side synergies be created by employing the strategy of economies of scope? And (2) how can demand-side synergies be developed by making use of simultaneous consumer utilities and multi-sided markets? Because of the different approach taken, we are able to describe how resources interact with each other and how simultaneous consumer utilities, two-sided markets and consumers’ willingness to pay react to each other. We first look at how such economic entities and basic concepts as business firm, resource, innovation, diversification, synergy, segment of consumers, etc., can be respectively modeled as interacting systems. We then address the previous two questions by establishing a series of 8 propositions by examining how relevant systems exert forces on each other so that some general conclusions follow. Because of the systemic certainty our discussions offer, this chapter is expected to provide practically useful guidance for managers, entrepreneurs, and retailers to create values for consumers and capture values for their companies.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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

  • Aas, T. H., Breunig, K. J., Hydle, K. M., & Pedersen, P. E. (2015). Innovation management practices in production-intensive service firms. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(05). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919615500553

  • Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. (2001). Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: Implications for product and process innovation. Management Science, 47(5), 611–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., & Snow, D. (2010). Old technology responses to new technology threats: Demand heterogeneity and graceful technology retreats. Industrial Corporate Change, 19(5), 1655–1675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., & Zemsky, P. (2006). A demand-based perspective on sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 27(3), 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, E. M., & Leshno, J. D. (2016). A supply and demand framework for two-sided matching markets. Journal of Political Economy, 124(5), 1235–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes! Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J., & Arikan, A. (2001). The resource-based view: Origins and implications. In M. Hitt, R. Freeman, & J. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management (pp. 124–185). Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becheikh, N., Landry, R., & Amara, N. (2006). Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993 to 2003. Technovation, 26(5), 644–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buffington, J. (2016). The future of manufacturing: An end to mass production. In J. Buffington (Ed.), Frictionless markets (pp. 49–65). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, A., Marzi, G., & Pellegrini, M. M. (2016). The internet of things in manufacturing innovation processes: Development and application of a conceptual framework. Business Process Management Journal, 22(2), 383–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossland, P., & Smith, F. I. (2002). Value creation in fine arts: A system dynamics model of converse demand and information cascades. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 417–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O., & Rajiv, S. (1999). Success in high-technology markets: Is marketing capability critical? Marketing Science, 18(4), 547–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E., Palmatier, R., & Grewal, R. (2011). Effects of customer and innovation asset configuration strategies on firm performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 587–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun, M. (1998). The independent and joint effects of the skill and physical bases of relatedness in diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 19(7), 611–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, J. Y.-L., Dang, Y. G., McCarthy, L., Liu, S. F., & Yong Liu, Y. (2019). Conditions under which synergistic innovations appear. Proceedings of the 2019 Annual Conference of Decision Sciences Institute (pp. 2061–2080).

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, J. Y.-L., Zhao, H. C., & Shao, L. (2018). Engineering rapid industrial revolutions for impoverished agrarian nations. Theoretical Economics Letters, 8, 2594–2640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J. S., MacDonald, G., & Ryall, M. D. (2008). The two sides of competition and their implications for strategy. Working paper, Melbourne Business School. https://works.bepress.com/michael_ryall/15/

    Google Scholar 

  • Gary, M. S. (2005). Implementation strategy and performance outcomes in related diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 26(7), 634–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmancioglu, N., Droge, C., & Calantone, R. (2009). Strategic fit to resources versus NPD execution proficiencies: What are their roles in determining success? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 266–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (2001). Evolve! Succeeding in the digital culture of tomorrow. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. Y., & Finkelstein, S. (2009). The effects of strategic and market complementarity on acquisition performance: Evidence from the U.S. commercial banking industry, 1989–2001. Strategic Management Journal, 30(6), 617–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y. (1999). General systems theory: A mathematical approach. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y. (2009). Systemic yoyos: Some impacts of the second dimension. CRC Press (an imprint of Taylor and Francis).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y., & OuYang, S. C. (2010). Irregularities and prediction of major disasters. CRC Press, an imprint of Taylor and Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., O’Shea, R. P., & Wright, M. (2008). The development of the RBV: Reflections from Birger Wernerfelt. Organization Studies, 29(8–9), 1125–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Thompson, S., & Morgenstern, U. (2009). The development of the resource-based view of the firm: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Management Review, 11(1), 9–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G. (2013). The end of competitive advantage: How to keep your strategy moving as fast as your business. Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nason, R. S., & Wiklund, J. (2018). An assessment of resource-based theorizing on firm growth and suggestions for the future. Journal of Management, 44(1), 32–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palich, L. E., Cardinal, L. B., & Miller, C. C. (2000). Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L. (2007). A consumer perspective on value creation. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001a). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001b). Tautology in the resource-based view and the implications of externally determined resource value: Further comments. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, J. A., & Wiersema, M. F. (2003). The measurement of corporate portfolio strategy: Analysis of the content validity of related diversification indexes. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two-sided markets: A progress report. RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakhartov, A. V., & Folta, T. B. (2014). Getting beyond relatedness as a driver of corporate value. Strategic Management Journal, 36(13), 1939–1959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamzadeh, A., & Kawamorita, K. H. (2015). Startup companies: Life cycle and challenges. The 4th international conference on employment, education and entrepreneurship (EEE), Belgrade, Serbia, 2015. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2628861 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2628861.

  • Santalo, J., & Becerra, M. (2008). Competition from specialized firms and the diversification-performance linkage. Journal of Finance, 63(2), 851–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: The internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. (2008). Resource management in dyadic competitive rivalry: The effects of resource bundling and deployment. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 919–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations, books I-III, (1986 printing). Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, M., & Tse, E. (2009). The resource-based view of competitive advantage in two-sided markets. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanriverdi, H., & Lee, C. H. (2008). Within-industry diversification and firm performance in the presence of network externalities: Evidence for the software industry. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 381–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 97–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas, M. (2008). Customer preference discontinuities: A trigger for radical technological change. Managerial Decision Economics, 29(2–3), 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (1999). Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 28(1), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villasalero, M. (2017). A resource-based analysis of realized knowledge relatedness in diversified firms. Journal of Business Research, 71(Feb.), 114–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visnjic, I., Wiengarten, F., & Neely, A. (2016). Only the brave: Product innovation, service business model innovation, and their impact on performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(1), 36–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y., & Lin, Y. (2002). Beyond nonstructural quantitative analysis: Blown-ups, spinning currents and modern science. World Scientific.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ye, G. L., Priem, R. L., & Alshwer, A. A. (2012). Achieving demand-side synergy from strategic diversification: How combining mundane assets can leverage consumer utilities. Organization Science, 23(1), 207–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, L., Marzi, G., Boccardi, A., & Ciappei, C. (2016). Gli effetti della Stampa 3D sulla competitivita aziendale. Il caso delle imprese orafe del distretto di Arezzo. Piccola Impresa/Small Business, 2(2), 80–100.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendix: Proof of Theorem 8.1

Appendix: Proof of Theorem 8.1

Given a system S0 = (M0, R0), another system Sn = (Mn, Rn) is said to be an nth-level object system of system S0, provided that there are systems.

$$ {S}_i=\left({M}_i,{R}_i\right),\mathrm{for}\ i=1,2,\dots, \mathrm{n}\hbox{--} 1, $$

such that Si is an object in Mi − 1, 1 ≤ i ≤ n. In this case, each element in Mn is referred to as an nth-level object of system S0. When the system S0 has at least one nth-level object system, for n = 1, 2, …, then the system is referred to as a multileveled (or multilevel) system.

A chain of object systems of S0 is a sequence {Si = (Mi, Ri) : i < α}, for some ordinal number α, of different-level object systems of S0, such that for each pair i, j < α satisfying i< j, there exists an integer n = n(i, j), a function of i and j, such that Sj is an nth-level object system of Si, Fig. 8.6, where each oval area stands for a system with its objects indicated by dots and relations by enclosed regions. Then the following result (Lin, 1999, p. 193) is true:

Fig. 8.6
figure 6

A chain of object system

$$ \left(\ast \right)\ \mathrm{Each}\ \mathrm{chain}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{object}\ \mathrm{systems}\ \mathrm{of}\ S\ \mathrm{must}\ \mathrm{be}\ \mathrm{finite}. $$

Now, we define the set M(S) of all fundamental objects as follows: First, let us rewrite the system S = (M, R) as S = (M0, R0) for the sake of notational convenience. Define

$$ {}^{\ast }{M}_0=\left\{x\in {M}_0:x\ \mathrm{is}\ \mathrm{not}\ \mathrm{a}\ \mathrm{system}\right\} $$

and

$$ {\overset{\sim }{M}}_0=\bigcup \left\{{M}_x:x=\left({M}_x,{R}_x\right)\in {M}_0-{}^{\ast }{M}_0\right\} $$

Assume that for a natural number n, two sequences {Mi : i = 0, 1, 2, …, n} and {\( {\overset{\sim }{M}}_i \): i = 0, 1, 2, …, n} have been defined, satisfying that

$$ {}^{\ast }{M}_i=\left\{x\in {\overset{\sim }{M}}_{i-1}:x\ \mathrm{is}\ \mathrm{not}\ \mathrm{a}\ \mathrm{system}\right\} $$

and

$$ {\overset{\sim }{M}}_i=\bigcup \left\{{M}_x:x=\left({M}_x,{R}_x\right)\in {\overset{\sim }{M}}_{i-1}-{}^{\ast }{M}_i\right\}. $$

Then the following two sets can be defined for the index number i + 1,

$$ {}^{\ast }{M}_{i+1}=\left\{x\in {\overset{\sim }{M}}_i:x\ \mathrm{is}\ \mathrm{not}\ \mathrm{a}\ \mathrm{system}\right\}\ \mathrm{a}\mathrm{nd}\ {\overset{\sim }{M}}_{i+1}=\bigcup \left\{{M}_x:x=\left({M}_x,{R}_x\right)\in {\overset{\sim }{M}}_i-{}^{\ast }{M}_{i+1}\right\}. $$

From mathematical induction, it follows that a sequence {Mi : i ∈ ω} is defined. Now, by letting M(S) =  ⋃ {Mi : i ∈ ω}, result (*) above guarantees that M(S) consists of all fundamental objects in system S.

As for the conclusion that |M| < |M(S)|, it follows from the assumptions that (1) each object system of S has a finite object set, (2) each object that appears in any relation in the system S or an object system of S only appears once in that relation, and (3) S has at least one chain of object systems of more than one level and each object system on the chain contains more than one object. Here, conditions (1) and (2) are necessary for producing the resultant inequality by limiting our counting cardinalities |M| and |M(S)| within the realm of natural numbers. End of the proof.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Forrest, J.YL., Liu, Y. (2022). Sufficient Conditions that Lead to Synergistic Innovations. In: Value in Business. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82898-1_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics