1. Introduction

Organizational Innovation Capabilities in Business to Business (B2B) contexts focuses on developing strong innovation strategies as well as creating sustainable competitive advantages (Schmidt, Saran-gee, & Montoya, 2009). Even so, to profit from inno-vation, business pioneers need to understand bu-siness design options as well as customer needs and technological trajectories.

Without a well-developed business model, innova-tors fail to capture value from their innovations, and studies claim that planning and controlling business models will be determined by the capabilities of the company (Teece, 2010). In this context, the B2B sector in Chile has not exploited innovation to its full. Although Chile remains the most innovative economy in Latin America (LATAM) according to Global Innovation In-dex (GII) it went from being 44th globally in 2016, to 46th in 2017. The positions of Latin American countries do not vary over time, versus other areas where there is greater dynamism. In fact, the Global Innovation Index (2019) again declared Chile as the most innova-tive country in Latin America, despite having fallen 4 positions from 47th in 2018 to 51st in 2019. This time, our country stood out as a regional leader, followed by Costa Rica (56), Mexico (57), Uruguay (62), Brazil (66), Colombia (67), Peru (69) and Argentina (73).

Consequently, the purpose of this research is firs-tly, to explore the variables of organizational innova-tion capabilities associated with better performance. Secondly, to analyze the impact of these variables on organizational innovation. Thirdly, to validate if there is any significant relationship between the variables and the outcomes of innovation processes and performance through empirical evidence from the B2B contexts in Chile.

The main contributions are: 1) To propose a con-ceptual model that includes three main constructs related with organizational innovation capabilities (valid and reliable variables) and 2) provide empirical evidence regarding the B2B sector in Chile. Thus, this work will provide a diagnosis about organizational innovation capabilities in order to guide future re-search and organizational developments in marketing innovation processes for different industrial sectors.

Therefore, the research is as follows: The first section illustrates a theoretical framework through systematic content analysis, as proposed by Becheikh, Landry, and Amara (2006), and present the literature review about the relevant variable of proposal model and hypothesis. The second section describes the me-thodology used in the study. The third section shows the principal results. Finally, in the last section, the most relevant conclusions and future research are presented.

 

2. Theoretical framework

The main role of innovation is to contribute to business survival, stimulate the growth of new job opportunities, improve business competitiveness, and contribute to the growth and productivity of the com-pany (Pino, Felzensztein, Zwerg-Villegas, & Arias-Bolzmann, 2016). In fact, the design and development of successful business models come from diverse and powerful capabilities, and innovation is one of these core dynamic organizational capabilities (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Sanchez, 2004).

For Wang and Cheng (2013), organizational innova-tion capabilities are described as the capabilities to ge-nerate changes to reinforce existing services or products to innovate changes that could significantly transform the organization. Therefore, “soft innovation” is seen as an increasingly significant element in the service sector in modern economies. Currently, its contribution is re-cognized in organizational and marketing innovation and in different industries (Nicolas, Rojas-Mora, & Valenzuela-Fernández, 2020).

According to Tuominen and Hyvönen (2004), organizational innovation capability is composed of managerial innovation and technological innovation. Managerial innovation involves the development of new strategies and business forms, while technological innovation pertains to the development of products, services and processes interrelated with these bu-siness activities (Damanpour, 1991; Tuominen & Hyvö-nen, 2004). Both capacities have been shown to have different impacts on organizational performance and competitive superiority (Sanchez, 1995). Thus, tech-nological capabilities are essential to add value for the client and management capabilities for the value appropriation process (value for the organization itself) (Mizik & Jacobson, 2003; Tuominen & Hyvönen, 2004).

Then a firm with strong organizational innovation capacity means it will have superior ability (compared to competitors) to combine, increase, and transform internal competencies to achieve changes in its bu-siness environment, creating and capturing value for the company and its clients (Teece, 2007).

In this way, a superior capacity for organizational innovation implies the existence of skills that should improve the performance of an innovation project (Sri-vastava, Fahey, & Christensen et al., 2001; Tuominen & Hyvönen, 2004; Zhao, Jiang, Peng, & Hong, 2021). In fact, the degree of a firm’s capacity to innovate is measured by the performance of its innovation projects: develop-ment superior skills, successful financial performan-ce and value adding performance (Srivastava et al., 2001; Tuominen & Hyvönen, 2004; Ernst, Kahle, Dubiel, Prabhu, & Subramaniam, 2014). In highly dynamic mar-kets, the integration of these capabilities optimizes the production and efficiency of the company and allows it to achieve higher performance of innovation due to the synergy between them (Salim, Ab Rahman, & Wahab, 2019).

Thus, to benefit from innovation in management and marketing, business pioneers must develop their or-ganizational innovation capabilities to generate busi-ness models according to the client’s needs and reality of the firm (Teece, 2010; Tuominen & Hyvönen, 2004), clearly define what they are main constructs related with these capabilities. These constructs should be multi-areas and will be a key factor in the creation and improvement of sustainable strategies, development of competitive advantages and the success of the organization (Teece, 2007; Teece, 2017).

On the one hand, literature shows that the innova-tion process requires the business model to create a system where innovation goes hand in hand with correct use and exploitation of knowhow and different (tangi-ble as well as intangible) assets (Teece, 2017; Mousavi, Bossink, & Vliet, 2018). Besides, the new paradigm in business models follows the creation and capture of value for the firm and the customer (market orientation) and raises the need for structural reconfiguration of companies (Spieth, Schneckenberg, & Ricart, 2014). Such reconfiguration requires companies to develop the capacity for innovation through a collaborative process, to work and compete with government agencies and other companies (Brenes, Camacho, Ciravegna, & Pichardo, 2016).

In this scenario, this study postulates that innova-tion performance is related to the organizational innovation capability, which is a result of the decisions and objectives in relation to innovation strategy & management projects, collaborative networks, and market orientation. Other research highlights that the-se three factors are somewhat complementary and that by working together, the company could promote sustainability in its business models and its innovation projects (Bocken & Geradts, 2020).

2.1 Innovation strategy & management projects

The main objective of company operation is to achieve its objectives by using its own resources and capabilities to overcome challenges and difficulties, as well as, take advantage of opportunities that arise along the way. This way, the firm will try to ensure that its actions and decisions are carried out in the most adequate way to create value and profit (Amat, 1996; Djumanazarovna, 2020) through a defined appropriate strategy.

Strategic Project Management allows the organi-zation to make decisions about designating resources for the central actions to evolve, where the efficiency of the operation will be influenced by those decisions and by the goals set. The strategy could be descri-bed as a logical combination of multiple elements, actors, components, and actions built as the optimal combination of factors, to work with a specific goal in a situation (Borges-Andrade, Escobar, Palomino, Saldaña, & Souza-Silva, 1995).

Hence, managing an innovation project in marketing today means much more than planning a sequential and interrelated set of activities. To implement such projects requires actions even before the formal phase of project development, linked to creating a favorable environment (Koen et al., 2001). Then, we can define strategic project management as a set of steps organized and adjusted to the requirements of the markets that allow orienting business action plans, and try to anticipate foresee-able events that could affect or impact the organization (Muralidharan, 2020; Hernández, Cardona, & Del Rio, 2017; Reid & Brentani, 2004).

For innovation to be successful, accurate diagnosis of the company’s current situation is required to esta-blish a realistic contribution that innovation can make in the organization (Hernández et al., 2017). With this objective, the capacity of management and strategic project development in companies play a fundamental role as this allows innovation to be managed through market surveillance, competitive and prospective intelligence, transforming the information obtained into useful input for decision-making (Aguirre, 2015; Hnatenko, Orlova-Kurilova, Shtuler, Serzhanov, & Rubezhanska, 2020).

Holtzman (2014) highlights the importance of pro-moting continuous innovation in the organization to create value by developing a portfolio of innovation capabilities. If a company aims to achieve a sustainable advantage through innovation, it is necessary to create an “internal DNA of innovation”. On the other hand, Ma-zzucchelli, Chierici, Abbate, and Fontana (2019) point out that firms should focus on creating new programs and training employees to improve their creativity and attention on developing innovation capabilities for the organization.

Thus, the effectiveness of innovation strategies will be influenced by the capacity of the firm to be able to progressively build, allocate and replenish resources, develop and update them as necessary to innovate and respond to changes in the market (Teece, 2017). Snihur and Wiklund (2019) analyze the different types of innovation and search behavior in order to pro-vide a better understanding of why managers must consider learning about the extensive diversity of innovation strategies across different industries and organizations. Therefore, it is possible to establish the following hypothesis:

• H1: Organizational innovation capabilities are positive and significantly related to innovation and strategic management projects.

2.2 Collaborative networks

A collaboration or association is the continual search for interactions between actors to maintain strong relationships, seek mutual benefits that could be economical or social links (Zaefarian, Henneberg, & Naudé, 2011). In this scenario, companies tend to integrate various groups of interest taking their needs into account for innovation and in corporate decisions (Baker, Grinstein, & Harmancioglu, 2015; West & Bogers, 2014; Balka, Raasch, & Herstatt, 2013; Scott, Hughes, & Hughes, 2016; Hienerth, Lettl, & Keinz, 2013). Thus, ma-nagement competence and abilities in the association is the principal root of income and opportunities to increase profitability.

Organizations can relate in such a way that, without ceasing to compete, they consider cooperation as part of their strategy to achieve better performance, cons-tituting the so-called knowledge networks (Becerra & Álvarez, 2011). Thus, successful collaboration can accelerate innovation processes or produce consi-derable business change (Diener & Piller, 2010).

Interactions founded on collaborations between parties conform extensive exchanges of resources and knowledge, which assume a collaborative posi-tion through strategies developed jointly among the participants (Hadjikhani & LaPlaca, 2013). Using net-working capability, firms combine their abilities and resources (Mu, Thomas, Peng, & Di Benedetto, 2017). The value and capacity of a company as a collaborator is linked to its own assets, the association contributes and strengthens those internal competences as well (Valenzuela-Fernández & Peñaloza-Briones, 2019). The organizations intensify their ability to collaborate by constantly improving routines to generate a synergistic association (Nelson, 1990).

In this way, the notion of networks underlines two critical remarks. On the one hand, intra- and inter-organizational collaborations are not just a way of com-pensation of lack of internal skills and, secondly, they should not be considered as a sequence of discrete transactions.

This is especially relevant in B2B contexts. In the industrial sector, the vision of a relationship is oriented towards a longer term than the B2C sector (Barroso & Martín, 1999). B2B companies seek to generate stable relationships through superior value delivery, satisfying the needs of customers in all areas, which requires the integration of all units of an organization around a common goal: to deliver a product and/or service that attracts, and retains customers (Quesada & Ruiz, 2007). Thus, inter-organizational collaborations, where information and resources are exchanged, allow companies to benefit from the advantages of both knowledge integration and specialization, and subsequent innovation performance (Ritala, Olander, Michailova, & Husted, 2015). Therefore, the following hypothesis is deduced by this study:

• H2: Organizational innovation capabilities are po-sitively and significantly related to the ability to generate collaborative networks (with agents of interest: customers and other stakeholders).

2.3 Market orientation

The nature of the environment where a firm opera-tes, impacts the benefits and costs of innovation (Lavie, Stettner, & Tushman, 2010). In this sense, strategic marketing literature posits that market orientation contributes to developing the capacity to detect the market, a proactive disposition towards customer sa-tisfaction, better management of knowledge, greater reception of ideas and a deeper level of connection that leads to superior organizational performance, being therefore, crucial to the success of organizational processes (Im & Workman, 2004).

This includes the perception of market orientation as an organizational culture approach or as a central part of the mission, vision, and values of the firm (Narver & Slater, 1990) and a point of view of the idea of creating intelligence, which identifies a succession of actions around information (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). Therefore, the strategic orientation will contemplate the firm’s philosophy in terms of business administra-tion through several core values and beliefs that guide the firm's attempt to accomplish greater performan-ce (Kirca, Jayachandran & Bearden, 2005). These core values and beliefs will determine the resources used by the firm, the outstanding individual capacities and resources and capacity to achieve cohesive whole (Day, 1994).

Therefore, market orientation is the principal cultu-ral foundation of organizational capability of learning (Slater & Narver, 1995). Acquiring and sharing knowled-ge related to clients and competitors within a firm puts it in a good position to develop organizational learning. Ramirez, Parra-Requena, Ruiz-Ortega, and Garcia-Villaverde (2018) suggest that both external information and organizational innovation, could lead companies to take advantage and improve their marketing innovation. Moreover, this approach encourages a culture of ex-perimentation and focus on constantly improving the firm’s process and systems (Kumar, Jones, Venkatesan, & Leone, 2011).

The result of this learning should be to obtain improved capabilities to adapt to alterations in the nature/conditions of the business and develop abilities in the decision-making process resulting in compe-titive advantages (Sinkula, Baker, & Noordewier, 1997; Calantone, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002; Westerlund & Rajala, 2010). The analysis of dynamic innovation capabilities indicates that more than just creating a sustainable advantage, they could also help companies to cope with challenges, difficulties or opportunities of an uncertain and constantly changing environment. These capabilities are crucial to support the adjustment of the firm’s innovation strategies (Wang, Cao, Qin, Zhang, Feng, & Feng, 2019). A portfolio of innovation capabilities should have a healthy mix of disruptive innovations which are difficult to imitate in order to sustain an advantage in the long term (Holtzman, 2014). In this sense, a firm learns to assimilate, absorb, and deepen new and important information and abilities to continue competitive in the market (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Slater & Narver, 1999; Grinstein, 2008; Paladino, 2008). Thus, the following hypothesis is presented in this study:

• H3: Organizational innovation capabilities are po-sitive and significantly related to the degree of market orientation that companies present.

Following, figure 1 presents the proposal of the conceptual model for this study and table 1 reveals information regarding the variables evaluated.

 

Source: own elaboration.

Figure 1. Explanatory conceptual model

 

3. Methodology

To find key factors of organizational innovation capabilities, the method of systematic analysis proposed by Becheikh, Landry and Amara (2006) is used in this study, which we use in this research to determine the relevant variables of organizational innovation capabilities. Additionally, the study is based on bibiometric studies in diverse areas of management (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Bachrach, 2008); innovation (Fagerberg, Fosaas, & Sapprasert, 2012); market orientation (Valenzuela-Fernández, Merigó & Nicolas, 2017) presented leading scholars and institutions in marketing journals (Chan, Lai & Liano, 2012); analysis of the journals in marketing and management which have stood out in the topic of innovation (Cancino, Merigó & Palacios-Marqués, 2015); marketing B2B (Valenzuela Fernández, Nicolas, Merigó, & Arroyo-Cañada, 2019) and the recognition of particular milestones in the lifetime of the journal to be showcased quantitavely (Martínez-López, Merigó, Valenzuela-Fernández & Nicolas, 2018; Valenzuela-Fernández, Merigó, Lichtenthal & Nicolas, 2019). In addition, the last criteria for the journals is that they must have at least 100 publications filtered by “marketing” and “innovation”. This means that the journals had to be a good representation of innovation focused on management and/or marketing. To establish this distinction, the journals were ranked based on their H-index, from highest to lowest. This index was used not only because of its superior nature compared to other systems to evaluate scientific production, but also since the H-index is an easily calculable global impact (in terms of quality) indicator of a researcher’s work (Martínez, Herrera, López-Gijn & Herrera-Viedma, 2014). To mention that the impact of a journal differs in the sub-areas they cover in marketing discipline, as a journal can be highly influential in one area, and less in another. Therefore, this ranking is only valid for the topic of innovation focused on management and/or marketing and cannot be extrapolated to other sub-areas (Baumgartner & Pieters, 2003). After that, we select a number of articles that cite these dimensions according to the top 5 journals, as shown in table 2.

To obtain empirical evidence from the B2B sector in Chile, this non-probability study used a self-admi-nistered structured questionnaire to collect data with closed questions using a Likert scale and Qualtrics software. 242 senior executives in Chile responded, most of them in managerial positions (56.2%) from Iron and Steel Industry (15.7%), Distribution (Supply) (15.3%), Mining (14.9%), Financial (14%) and Agroindustry (12.8%).

 

4. Results

Content validity was evaluated with scales validated for: market orientation (Narver & Slater, 1990; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), collaborative networks (Faems et al., 2005; Christensen & Overdorf, 2000) and management and strategic project development (Adams et al., 2006; Artto et al., 2008; Stevens & Burley, 2003). Moreover, review of items by a panel of experts: researchers from the faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Chile and researchers from the Ibero-American Program of Science and Technology for Development (CYTED).

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in order to evaluate convergent validity. All standardized loads and k standardized coefficients were > 0.7. The results for Cronbach's were > 0. 9 and explained variance > 60%. Average extracted variance (AVE = 0.613) and Compound reliability = 0.980. Divergent validity was corroborated by Difference Test x2 significant and Interval of confi-dence. Following, table 3 reveals information regarding the variables evaluated.

 

Table 1. Variables of proposal model

Variable	Definition	Latent variable	Item
Organizational innovation capabilities	Organizational innovation capabilities are described as the capabilities to generate changes to reinforce existing services or products and generate changes that could significantly transform the organization (Wang & Cheng, 2013; Nicolas, Rojas & Valenzuela, 2020; Tuominen & Hyvönen, 2004)
Innovation strategy & management project	The ability to make decisions regarding the resources to be allocated for the main actions to take place, where the effectiveness will be influenced by such decisions and their objectives (Reid & Brentani, 2004).	Innovation strategy (Adams, Bessant, & Phelps, 2006; Merchant, 1985; Trott, 2002; Zien & Buckler, 1997; Bonner, Ruekert, & Walker Jr., 2002)	Str1	Consider innovation in long-term strategic planning
			Str2	View innovation as a key to competitiveness
			Str3	Communicate internally (workers, shareholders) issues of innovation
			Str4	Communicate externally (suppliers, customers) issues of innovation
		Management project (Simons, 1995; Artto, Martinsuo, Dietrich, & Kujala, 2008; Bonner et al., 2002; Adams et al., 2006)	MP1	Consider expected cost of innovation
			MP2	Consider a control system
			MP3	Encourage multi-area participation
			MP4	Plan the allocation of resources for innovation
Collaborative networks	The ability to collaborate inter-organizationally, share risks, resources and competences, unify skills, foster joint solutions, co-create value and others (Vargo & Lusch, 2010, Uzzi, 1997).	Customer collaboration networks (Faems, Van Looy, & Debackere, 2005; Christensen and Overdorf, 2000)	Cus1	Contact with clients for innovation
			Cus2	Cooperate with clients to innovate
			Cus3	Maintains permanent openness to know the evaluation of customers
		Stakeholder collaboration networks (Faems et al., 2005; Damanpour & Wischnevsky, 2006)	Sta1	Establish contact with suppliers to develop activities to develop innovation
			Sta2	Contact educational institutions to innovate
			Sta3	Cooperate with suppliers to innovate
Market Orientation	Market detection capacity, better reception of ideas and superior performance (Im & Workman 2004).	(Narver & Slater, 1990; Kohli y Jaworski, 1990; Ruekert, 1992)	MO1	Identify their knowledge and key competences
			MO2	Manage knowledge transfer internally
			MO3	Identify current and future customer needs
			MO4	Identify competitor innovation

Source: own elaboration.

 

Table 2. Number of articles in journal leaders (according H-index) that have mentioned the dimensions

Journal	Innovation strategy and Management Projects	Collaborative networks	Market Orientation
Strategic Management Journal	11	9	16
Journal of Marketing	10	8	11
Management Science	5	9	12
Organization Science	10	6	16
Journal of Product Innovation Management	7	3	11
Total	43	35	66

Source: own elaboration.

 

Comment: Values significant at 0.001. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study has been verified by this sample.

Based on correlation results, H1 is verified, that is, Organizational innovation capabilities are positive and significantly related to innovation strategy & management projects (1=0.92; p<0.01). The most co-mmon incidence variables are related to establishing clear objectives about the innovation project and encouraging the involvement of various functional areas of the firm in strategic projects. H2 was also supported, that is, organizational innovation capa-bilities are positive and significantly related to the abi-lity to generate collaborative networks (with agents of interest: customers and other stakeholders) (2=0.843; p<0.01). The role of customers and suppliers is highlighted above other agents of interest (NGOs, public institutions, other companies, among others). Finally, H3 was also corroborated, that is, organizational innovation capabilities are positive and significantly related to the degree of market orientation that companies present (3=0.869; p<0.01). The most common incidence varia-bles correspond to recognizing the client’s present and future needs. In general terms, collaboration is the least common incidence variable from the respon-dents’ perspective. Although, it is observed that all the variables are related to establishing relationships. However, the long-term focus is lost in terms of a joint collaborative development and focus on the most direct agents (workers, customers and suppliers).

 

Table 3. Main results order by standardized coefficient

Variable	-	Standardized coefficient	R square
Innovation strategy & management project	:0.920 :0.48	0.968	0.937
Market Orientation	:0.869 :0.63	0.950	0.903
Collaborative networks	:0.843 :0.46	0.611	0.373
Variable		Standardized coefficient	R square
Customer collaboration networks		0.922	0.850
Management project		0.908	0.824
Stakeholder collaboration networks		0.903	0.815
Innovation strategy		0.841	0.707
Variable	Item	Standardized coefficient	R square
Innovation strategy	Str4	0.878	0.771
	Str2	0.871	0.759
	Str1	0.706	0.498
	Str3	0.803	0.645
Management project	MP3	0.913	0.834
	MP2	0.857	0.734
	MP1	0.843	0.711
	MP4	0.77	0.593
Customer collaboration networks	Cus3	0.656	0.430
	Cus1	0.652	0.425
	Cus2	0.520	0.270
Stakeholder collaboration networks	Sta1	0.804	0.646
	Sta2	0.768	0.590
	Sta3	0.711	0.506
Market Orientation	MO3	0.913	0.834
	MO2	0.857	0.734
	MO1	0.843	0.711
	MO4	0.770	0.593

Source: own elaboration.

 

Table 4 shows an average evaluation of the three dimensions for each sector. For instance, collaboration networks are measured as the least perfected capability, and management and strategic project development the most developed. The mining sector exhibit the best evaluation, while agroindustry the lowest, followed by the Finance sector.

 

Table 4. Organizational innovation capability index

Industry sector	Project development	Collaboration networks	Market orientation
Mining	6.9	6.1	7
Iron and steel	6.5	5.8	6.9
Distribution	6.5	5.5	6.5
Finance	5.6	6.3	6.2
Agroindustry	6.7	5	5.3
Other	6.9	5.9	6.7
Average	6.5	5.8	6.4
Standard deviation	0.48	0.46	0.63

Source: own elaboration.

 

In summary, this study highlights the role of mar-ket orientation, collaborative networks, and innovation strategy & management projects in organizational in-novation capabilities. There is an exploration of the central variables related to innovation in management and/or marketing. A significant and positive impact of each of the variables found in the systematic analysis of the literature was detected, affecting the results of the innovation. Thus, the factors allow companies to reconfigure their assets and compete in current businesses.

 

5. Conclusions and future research

In general, this study evidences that it is the mining sector that presents the best evaluation in terms of innovation capabilities in management. This is even more outstanding when we consider innovation in long term strategic planning. However, there is still a way to go in terms of collaboration. On the other hand, the Agroindustry sector has the lowest level, followed by the financial sector. In this sense, companies require greater focus on external analysis of clients and competitors that allows companies to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their projects in this area. The mining sector has the best results in every variable.

Regarding variables, the most common variable is management and strategic project development and the least common incidence variable was collaboration networks, which is also true at a global level. It is also interesting to observe how companies have better results in areas related to client networks as compar-ed to other agents; this shows a short-term perspe-ctive. In fact, the main motivators of innovation are still with a short-term view (sales), while the main inhibitors highlight the lack of cooperation and funds.

Through this work, a better understanding of the opportunities and challenges in the area has been pro-vided (Van Raam, 1996), which allows specific issues to be identified and developed at a national and company level that can be used as a guide for any interested person -businessman, politician, scholar- (Kirca et al., 2005).Therefore, this research contributes to the growth of knowledge in terms of organizational innovation capabilities, by opening new research ideas.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the sample is small compared to the reality in the Chilean industrial sector. However, the sample used in this work covers the central regions of our country to a greater extent and leaves out some important sectors of the Chilean economy, such as fishing and electricity. It establi-shes the need to research if the results are evident in other sectors, countries and regions. Also, the present declarative study is from a supplier’s perspective.

 

Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

 

Note

Part of this research was presented at CLADEA conference, 2017, organized by California State Uni-versity, USA. And published in process 77 entitled “Overcoming the paradigms prevailing in innovation: case applied to the B2B sector in Chile” in number Innovation and Innovation Management, April 2018.

 

References

Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International journal of management reviews, 8(1), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00119.x

Aguirre, J. (2015). Inteligencia estratégica: un sistema para gestionar la innovación. Estudios Gerenciales, 31(134), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.estger.2014.07.001

Amat, J. (1996). El control de gestión: una perspectiva de dirección. Barcelona: Gestión 2000.

Artto, K., Martinsuo, M., Dietrich, P., & Kujala, J. (2008). Project strategy: strategy types and their contents in innovation projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370810846414

Baker, W. E., Grinstein, A., & Harmancioglu, N. (2015). Whose innovation performance benefits more from external networks: entrepreneurial or conservative firms? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(1), 104-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12263

Balka, K., Raasch, C., & Herstatt, C. (2013). The effect of selective openness on value creation in user innovation communities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 392-407. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12102

Barroso, C., & Martín, E. (1999). Marketing Relacional. Madrid: ESIC.

Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time. Journal of marketing, 67(2), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.123.18610

Becerra, F. & Álvarez, C. M. (2011). El talento humano y la innovación empresarial en el contexto de las redes empresariales: el clúster de prendas de vestir en Caldas-Colombia. Estudios Gerenciales, 27(119), 209-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0123-5923(11)70164-4

Becheikh, N., Landry, R., & Amara, N. (2006). Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993-2003. Technovation, 26(5), 644-664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.06.016

Bocken, N. & Geradts, T. (2020). Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 53(4), 101950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101950

Bonner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., & Walker Jr, O. C. (2002). Upper management control of new product development projects and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of the Product Development & Management Association, 19(3), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1930233

Borges-Andrade, J., Escobar, M., Palomino, J., Saldaña, R., & Souza-Silva, J. (1995). Planificación estratégica. Cali, Capacitación en PS&E para la Administración de la Investigación Agropecuaria. ISNAR- CIAT, p. 1-15.

Brenes, E. R., Camacho, A. R., Ciravegna, L., & Pichardo, C. A. (2016). Strategy and innovation in emerging economies after the end of the commodity boom—Insights from Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4363-4367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.059

Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial marketing management, 31(6), 515-524.

Cancino, C., Merigó, J. M., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2015). A bibliometric analysis of innovation research. Documentos de Trabajo CID Working Paper. Working Paper. Centro de Innovación para el Desarrollo. Universidad de Chile.

Chan, K.C., Lai, P., & Liano, K. (2012). A threshold citation analysis in marketing research. European Journal of Marketing, 46 (1/2), 134–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211189211

Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 66−77.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590. https://doi.org/10.5465/256406

Damanpour, F., & Wischnevsky, J. D. (2006). Research on innovation in organizations: Distinguishing innovation-generating from innovation-adopting organizations. Journal of engineering and technology management. 23(4), 269-291 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2006.08.002

Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. The Journal of Marketing. 58(4), 37–52. https://doi.org/10. 1177/002224299405800404

Djumanazarovna, K. G. (2020). The role of the state in the formulation of innovation strategy in industrial enterprises. Academy, 4(55), 36-37.

Diener, K. & Piller, F. (2010). The market for open innovation increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the innovation process. Aachen: Aachen University Technology and Innovation Management Group.

Ernst, H., Kahle, H. N., Dubiel, A., Prabhu, J., & Subramaniam, M. (2014). The antecedents and consequences of affordable value innovations for emerging markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12171

Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach. Journal of product innovation management, 22(3), 238-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00120.x

Fagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., & Sapprasert, K. (2012). Innovation: Ex-ploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1132–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.008

Grinstein, A. (2008). The relationships between market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810840934

Hadjikhani, A., & LaPlaca, P. (2013). Development of B2B marketing theory. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(3), 294-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.03.011

Hienerth, C., C. Lettl, & P. Keinz. (2013). Synergies among producer firms, lead users, and user communities: The case of the LEGO producer–user ecosystem. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 848–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12127

Hernández, H. G., Cardona, D. A., & Del Rio, J. L. (2017). Direccionamiento Estratégico: Proyección de la Innovación Tecnológica y Gestión Administrativa en las Pequeñas Empresas. Información tecnológica, 28(5), 15-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642017000500003

Hnatenko, I., Orlova-Kurilova, O., Shtuler, I., Serzhanov, V., & Rubezhanska, V. (2020). An approach to innovation potential evaluation as a means of enterprise management improving. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management, 7(1), 112-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/IJSOM.2020.1.7

Holtzman, Y. (2014). A strategy of innovation through the development of a portfolio of innovation capabilities. Journal of Management Development, 33(1), 24-31. https://doi-org.uchile.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2013-0138

Im, S., & Workman Jr, J. P. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 114-132. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.2.114.27788

Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24-41. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.2.24.60761

Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D'Amore, R., Elkins, C. Herald, K., Incorvia, M., Johnson, A., Karol, R., Seibert, R., Slavejkov, A. & Wagner, K. (2001). Providing clarity and a common language to the “fuzzy front end”. Research-Technology Management, 44(2), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2001.11671418

Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of marketing, 54(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400201

Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R., & Leone, R. P. (2011). Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.75.1.16

Lavie, D., U. Stettner, & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–55. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416521003691287

Martínez, M., Herrera, M., López-Gijn, J., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2014). H-classics: Characterizing the concept of citation classics through h-index, Scientometrics, 98(1), 1971–1983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1155-9

Martínez-López, F., Merigó, J., Valenzuela-Fernández, L. & Nicolás, C. (2018). Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: a bibliometric analysis, European Journal of Marketing, 52(1/2), 439-468. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0853

Mazzucchelli, A., Chierici, R., Abbate, T. & Fontana, S. (2019). Exploring the microfoundations of innovation capabilities: Evidende from cross-border R&D partnership. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 242-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.003

Merchant, K.A. (1985). Control in Business Organizations. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(88)90024-4

Mizik, N. & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: the financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis, Journal of Marketing, 67, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.1.63.18595

Mousavi, S., Bossink, B. & Vliet, M. (2018). Dynamic capabilities and organizational routines for managing innovation towards sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, 224-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.215

Mu, J., Thomas, E., Peng, G. & Di Benedetto, A. (2017). Strategic orientation and new product development performance: The role of networking capability and networking ability. Industrial Marketing Management, 64, 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.09.007

Muralidharan, V. (2020). A Structured Innovation Strategy. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 48(4), 12-16.

Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400403

Nelson, R. R. (1990). US technological leadership: Where did it come from and where did it go? Research Policy, 19(2), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(90)90042-5

Nicolas, C., Rojas-Mora, J., & Valenzuela-Fernández, L. (2020). Causal Relationships between Economic Activity and the Mining Industry in Chile. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38 (5), 5405-5412. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179633

Paladino, A. (2008). Analyzing the effects of market and resource orientations on innovative outcomes in times of turbulence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 577-592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00323.x

Pino, C., Felzensztein, C., Zwerg-Villegas, A. M., & Arias-Bolzmann, L. (2016). Non-technological innovations: Market performance of exporting firms in South America. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4385-4393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.061

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P., & Bachrach, D.G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4), 641–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308319533

Quesada, F. B. C., & Ruiz, L. G. (2007). Las implicaciones estratégicas del marketing relacional: fidelización y mercados ampliados. Anuario Jurídico y Económico Escurialense, (40), 543-568.

Ramirez, F.J., Parra-Requena, G., Ruiz-Ortega, M.J. & Garcia-Villaverde, P.M. (2018). From external information to innovation: the mediating role of product and organizational innovation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(5), 693-705. https://doi-org.uchile.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/JBIM-12-2016-0291

Reid, S.E., & Brentani, U. (2004). The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: a theoretical model. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(3), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00068.x

Ritala, P., Olander, H., Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2015). Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and relative innovation performance: An empirical study. Technovation, 35, 22-31. #9;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.011

Ruekert, R.W. (1992). Developing a Market Orientation: An Organizational Strategy Perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9, 225-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(92)90019-H

Salim, N., Ab Rahman, M.N. & Wahab, D.A. (2019). A systematic literature review of internal capabilities for enhancing eco-innovation performance of manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 1445-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.105

Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic management journal, 16(S1), 135-159. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160921

Sanchez, R. (2004). Understanding competence-based management: Identifying and managing five modes of competence. Journal of Business research, 57(5), 518-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00318-1

Schmidt, J., Sarangee, K., & Montoya, M. (2009). Exploring new product development project review practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), 520-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00678.x

Scott, S., Hughes, M., & Hughes, P. (2016). Social capital’s role for value creation in open innovation networks. The Strategic Management Society Special Conference. Strategy Challenges in the 21st Century: Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Coopetition. Rome, Italy, 5-7 June 2016.

Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E. & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), 305-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070397254003

Simons, R. (1995). Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v24i4.1333

Slater, S. F. & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252120

Slater, S. F. & Narver, J. C. (1999). Market-oriented is more than being customer-led. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1165-1168. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199912)20:12<1165::AID-SMJ73>3.0.CO;2-#

Snihur, Y. & Wiklund, J. (2019). Searching for innovation: Product, process, and business model innovations and search behavior in established firms. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 305-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.05.003

Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Ricart, J. E. (2014). Business model innovation–state of the art and future challenges for the field. R&D Management, 44(3), 237-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12071

Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (2001). The resource-based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), 777-802. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700610

Stevens, G. A., & Burley, J. (2003). Piloting the rocket of radical innovation. Research-Technology Management, 46(2), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2003.11671550

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640

Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003

Teece, D. J. (2017). Towards a capability theory of (innovating) firms: implications for management and policy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(3), 693-720. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bew063

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z

Trott, P. (2002). Innovation Management and New Product Development (2nd ed). Gosport: Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00551_1.x

Tuominen, M., & Hyvönen, S. (2004). Organizational innovation capability: A driver for competitive superiority in marketing channels. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 14(3), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593960410001678417

Van Raam, A. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foreinsight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02129602

Valenzuela Fernández, L., Nicolas, C., Merigó, J. & Arroyo-Cañada, F. (2019). Industrial marketing research: a bibliometric analysis (1990-2015), Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(3), 550-560. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2017-0167

Valenzuela-Fernández, L. & Peñaloza-Briones, N. (2019). Orga-nizational Capabilities, Value Cocreation, and Innovation: How Well Are We Prepared to Face Future Challenges? (Purchasing and Supply Management, Sales Management-A Modern Perspective) IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86061

Valenzuela-Fernandez, L., Merigó, J., Lichtenthal D., & Nicolas C. (2019). A Bibliometric Analysis of the First 25 Years of the Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 26(1), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2019.1565142

Valenzuela-Fernández, L., Merigó, J., & Nicolas, C. (2017). Universidades influyentes en investigación sobre orientación al mercado. Una visión general entre 1990 y 2014, Estudios Gerenciales, 33(144), 221-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.estger.2017.07.001

Wang, W., Cao, Q., Qin, L., Zhang, Y., Feng, T. & Feng, L. (2019). Uncertain environment, dynamic innovation capabilities and innovation strategies: A case study on Qihoo 360. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 284-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.029

Wang, D. & Chen, S. (2013). Does intellectual capital matter? High-performance work systems and bilateral innovative capabilities. International Journal of Manpower, 34(8), 861-879. https://doi-org.uchile.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2013-0167

West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814-831. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125

Westerlund, M., & Rajala, R. (2010). Learning and innovation in inter-organizational network collaboration. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(6), 435-442. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621011066026

Zaefarian, G., Henneberg, S. C., and Naudé, P. (2011). Resource acquisition strategies in business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 862-874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.010

Zhao, S., Jiang, Y., Peng, X., & Hong, J. (2020). Knowledge sharing direction and innovation performance in organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(2), 371-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2019-0244

Zien, K. A., & Buckler, S. A. (1997). From experience dreams to market: crafting a culture of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4), 274-287. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1440274