Search

This paper analyzes the effect of various innovation strategies (ISs) of firms on their future performance, captured by labor productivity. Using five waves of the Community Innovation Survey in Sweden, we have traced the innovative behavior of firms over a decade, that is, from 2002 to 2012. We defined ISs to be either simple or complex (in various degrees). We call an IS a simple IS when firms engage in only one of the four types of Schumpeterian innovations, that is, product, process, marketing, or organizational, while a complex IS is when firms simultaneously engage in more than one type. The main findings indicate that those firms that choose and afford to have complex ISs are better off in terms of their future productivity in comparison with those firms that choose not to innovative (base group) and also in comparison with those firms that choose simple ISs. The results are mostly robust for those complex innovators that have a higher degree of complexity and also keep the balance between technological (product and process) and non-technological (organizational and marketing) innovations.

This paper analyzes the effect of various innovation strategies (ISs) of firms on their future performance, captured by labor productivity. Using five waves of the Community Innovation Survey in Sweden, we have traced the innovative behavior of firms over a decade, that is, from 2002 to 2012. We defined ISs to be either simple or complex (in various degrees). We call an IS a simple IS when firms engage in only one of the four types of Schumpeterian innovations, that is, product, process, marketing, or organizational, while a complex IS is when firms simultaneously engage in more than one type. The main findings indicate that those firms that choose and afford to have complex ISs are better off in terms of their future productivity in comparison with those firms that choose not to innovative (base group) and also in comparison with those firms that choose simple ISs. The results are mostly robust for those complex innovators that have a higher degree of complexity and also keep the balance between technological (product and process) and non-technological (organizational and marketing) innovations.

This paper analyzes the effect of various innovation strategies (ISs) of firms on their future performance, captured by labor productivity. Using five waves of the Community Innovation Survey in Sweden, we have traced the innovative behavior of firms over a decade, that is, from 2002 to 2012. We defined ISs to be either simple or complex (in various degrees). We call an IS a simple IS when firms engage in only one of the four types of Schumpeterian innovations, that is, product, process, marketing, or organizational, while a complex IS is when firms simultaneously engage in more than one type. The main findings indicate that those firms that choose and afford to have complex ISs are better off in terms of their future productivity in comparison with those firms that choose not to innovative (base group) and also in comparison with those firms that choose simple ISs. The results are mostly robust for those complex innovators that have a higher degree of complexity and also keep the balance between technological (product and process) and non-technological (organizational and marketing) innovations.

This paper analyzes the effect of various innovation strategies (ISs) of firms on their future performance, captured by labor productivity. Using five waves of the Community Innovation Survey in Sweden, we have traced the innovative behavior of firms over a decade, that is, from 2002 to 2012. We defined ISs to be either simple or complex (in various degrees). We call an IS a simple IS when firms engage in only one of the four types of Schumpeterian innovations, that is, product, process, marketing, or organizational, while a complex IS is when firms simultaneously engage in more than one type. The main findings indicate that those firms that choose and afford to have complex ISs are better off in terms of their future productivity in comparison with those firms that choose not to innovative (base group) and also in comparison with those firms that choose simple ISs. The results are mostly robust for those complex innovators that have a higher degree of complexity and also keep the balance between technological (product and process) and non-technological (organizational and marketing) innovations.

This paper analyzes the effect of various innovation strategies (ISs) of firms on their future performance, captured by labor productivity. Using five waves of the Community Innovation Survey in Sweden, we have traced the innovative behavior of firms over a decade, that is, from 2002 to 2012. We defined ISs to be either simple or complex (in various degrees). We call an IS a simple IS when firms engage in only one of the four types of Schumpeterian innovations, that is, product, process, marketing, or organizational, while a complex IS is when firms simultaneously engage in more than one type. The main findings indicate that those firms that choose and afford to have complex ISs are better off in terms of their future productivity in comparison with those firms that choose not to innovative (base group) and also in comparison with those firms that choose simple ISs. The results are mostly robust for those complex innovators that have a higher degree of complexity and also keep the balance between technological (product and process) and non-technological (organizational and marketing) innovations.

This paper analyzes the effect of various innovation strategies (ISs) of firms on their future performance, captured by labor productivity. Using five waves of the Community Innovation Survey in Sweden, we have traced the innovative behavior of firms over a decade, that is, from 2002 to 2012. We defined ISs to be either simple or complex (in various degrees). We call an IS a simple IS when firms engage in only one of the four types of Schumpeterian innovations, that is, product, process, marketing, or organizational, while a complex IS is when firms simultaneously engage in more than one type. The main findings indicate that those firms that choose and afford to have complex ISs are better off in terms of their future productivity in comparison with those firms that choose not to innovative (base group) and also in comparison with those firms that choose simple ISs. The results are mostly robust for those complex innovators that have a higher degree of complexity and also keep the balance between technological (product and process) and non-technological (organizational and marketing) innovations.

This paper analyzes the effect of various innovation strategies of firms on their future performance, captured by labour productivity. Using five waves of the Community Innovation Survey in Sweden, we have traced the innovative behaviour of firms over a decade, i.e. from 2002 to 2012. We distinguish between sixteen innovation strategies, which compose of Schumpeterian four types of innovations, i.e. process, product, marketing, and organizational (simple innovation strategies) plus various combinations of these four types (complex innovation strategies). The main findings indicate that those firms that choose and afford to have a complex innovation strategy are better off in terms of their future productivity in compare with both those firms that choose not to innovative (base group) and those firms that choose simple innovation strategies. Moreover, not all types of complex innovation strategies affect the future productivity significantly; rather, there are only few of them. This necessitates a purposeful choice of innovation strategy for firms.