INTERNAL CAPABILITIES, EXTERNAL SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE, AND INNOVATIVENESS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TURKISH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 3, 401 - 411, 06.11.2015

Arzu Karaman Akgul

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2015312988

Abstract

Due to the rise of globalization, dynamics of national and international market evolve towards higher competition and uncertainty, necessitating firms to undertake multiple tasks that occur simultaneously. In this difficult to predict atmosphere, using technological opportunities and innovations bring firms a competitive advantage over their rivals. In recent years, one of the significant strategies of gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage in the market is the capability of firms to introduce innovations and adopting these innovations as quickly as possible. Firms mostly use internal capabilities and external sources of knowledge in developing this innovation capability. In the literature, numerous earlier studies have concentrated on the relationship between innovativeness and internal capabilities and external sources of knowledge. However, there are still very few researches on emerging countries which covers all of these dimensions.  Therefore, the motivation of this study is to focus on the relationships among internal capabilities of firms, external sources of knowledge, and types of innovations in the case of Turkey as an important emerging country. This study uses a comprehensive model empirically based upon the data gathered from Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) that was carried out by the World Bank in Turkey in 2013. The results show that firms which benefit from internal capabilities are likely to make innovations and firms which use external sources of knowledge are likely to make innovations. But among the types of innovations, only product innovations could be achieved when firms are benefited from the joint effect of internal capabilities and external sources of knowledge.

Keywords

Innovativeness, internal capabilities, external sources of knowledge, manufacturing industry

References

• Allison, P. D. (2012). Logistic regression using SAS: Theory and application. 2nd ed. Cary: N.C.: SAS Institute.
• Arundel, A. & Bordoy, C. (2001). The relative value of internal and external information sources to innovation. In
• Know for innovation workshop, Athens. Barrett, P. and Sexton. M. (2006). Innovation in small, project-based ccnstruction firms, British Journal of Management, 17 (4), pp. 331-346.
• Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation, Sloan Management Review, 44 (3), pp. 35-41.
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
• Crespi, G., Arias-Ortiz, E., Tacsir, E., Vargas, F., & Zuñiga, P. (2014). Innovation for economic performance: the case of Latin American firms. Eurasian Business Review, 4 (1), pp. 31-50.
• Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11 (3), pp. 147-162.
• Hagedoorn, J. and Myriam C. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?. Research policy, 32 (8), pp. 1365-1379.
• Lokshin, B., Belderbos, R. & Carree, M. (2008). The productivity effects of internal and external R&D: evidence from a dynamic panel data model. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70 (3), pp. 399-413.
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1), pp. 71-87.
• Martĺnez-Ros, E. and Orfila-Sintes, F. (2009). Innovation activity in the hotel industry. Technovation, 29 (9), pp. 632-6
• Massa, S., and Testa. S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs: Misaligned perspectives and goals among entrepreneurs, academics, and policy makers. Technovation 28 (7), pp. 393-407.
• Mohnen, P., & Hall, B. H. (2013). Innovation and productivity: an update. Eurasian Business Review, 3 (1), pp. 47- Oslo http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files/BTYPD/kilavuzlar/Oslo_Manual_Third_Edition.pdf July 1, 2015). Manual, 3rd ed. (2005), (Accessed
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. The Journal of Economic History, 7 (2), pp. 149-1
• Su, Y., Tsang, E. W., & Peng, M. W. (2009), How do internal capabilities and external partnerships affect innovativeness? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26 (2), pp. 309-331.
• Svetina, A. C., & Prodan. I. (2008). How internal and external sources of knowledge contribute to firms’ innovation performance. Managing Global Transitions, 6 (3), pp. 277-299.
• The World Bank, 2013. Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey. Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/BEEPS (December 12, 2014).
• Vega-Jurado, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A. & Fernández-de-Lucio, I. (2009). Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry, Industrial and Corporate Change, 18 (4), pp. 637-6
• Von Hippel, E. (1988), The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.