When does lack of resources make new firms innovative--论文代写范文精选

虽然非常翔实,但这种方法无法解释一个重要经验现象，为什么新公司善于创新呢?我们的研究旨在考察环境特征,产生新企业的创新。下面的essay代写范文进行详述。

Abstract
When are new firms innovative? Organizational researchers have long studied this question, but mixed findings have emerged from these studies. Some scholars have suggested that new firms, which cannot use existing firm knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) and resources (Teece, 1986), have trouble innovating. However, other authors have argued exactly the opposite: New firms are highly innovative because their innovative efforts do not cannibalize their existing products (Arrow, 1962) or require them to filter new knowledge through organizational routines and structures that are ill-suited to that purpose (Henderson & Clark, 1990). More recently, researchers have sought to reconcile these conflicting perspectives by focusing on the nature of the new technology, arguing that new firms are better suited to developing radical innovations than incremental ones (Christensen & Bower, 1996; Hamilton & Singh, 1992). Although extremely informative, this approach fails to explain an important empirical phenomenon: Why are new firms better at innovation in some industries than in others?

Our study seeks to examine the environmental characteristics that give rise to innovation in new firms. Building upon the recommendations of resource-based theorists to consider the relationship between resources and the environmental context in which they are used (Miller & Shamsie, 1996; Priem & Butler, 2001), we propose an environmental contingency approach. New firms are more effective innovators in environments where lack of resources is a benefit, and worse in environments where such a lack is a constraint. Our approach is valuable in three ways. By showing that the value of resources depends on the environment, our study helps to unravel when resources promote, and when they hinder, innovation. 

In addition, our study contributes to research on firm resources by considering the case of firms that have not yet developed or acquired those resources. By examining when not having resources is valuable, we shed light on the relative contributions that organizational resources make to innovation. Furthermore, by using inventions patented and licensed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1980 –96 as the source for the empirical sample, we were able to examine inventions at risk of commercialization by both new and established firms. Through this approach, we avoided sample selection bias, which often makes it difficult to interpret results on firm newness and innovation (Barnett & Burgelman, 1996).

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 
Key Constructs 
Innovation. Following prior research, we define innovation as “a process that begins with an invention, proceeds with the development of the invention, and results in the introduction of a new product, process or service to the marketplace” (Edwards & Gordon, 1984: 1). Innovation begins when a firm chooses an invention for development, with the ultimate goal of introducing it to the market (Kuznets, 1962). This definition is also consistent with Schumpeter’s description: “The making of the invention and the carrying out of the corresponding innovation are, economically and sociologically, two entirely different things” (1939: 85).

Firm newness. In contrast with the authors of economic studies that focus on incentives to innovate, and consequently have used time of market entry to conceptualize newness, we examined innovation from the organizational standpoint. Accordingly, we used time of organizational founding to define newness (see also Henderson, 1994; Sø- rensen & Stuart, 2000). Specifically, we defined new firms as newly founded organizations and established firms, as organizations already in existence. Further, new firms are stand-alone organizations and do not include new in-house manufacturing or marketing units, new divisions of established corporations, or new collaborative manufacturing or marketing units owned by two established firms.

Environment. Prior research suggests that several environmental factors influence the innovation process (Kuznets, 1962; Utterback, 1994). First, the degree of competition influences innovation because firms need to transform new ideas into new products more effectively than competitors. Second, availability of financial resources influences innovation because access to capital allows an innovator to follow the normal path of developing the new product before selling it to others. Third, the manufacturing intensity of the production process influences innovation because information about manufacturing influences product development. Fourth, the size of the market influences innovation because the innovator needs to believe that the market size is sufficient to justify the investment of time and money in the uncertain activity of developing new products in place of investing in other activities.

Theoretical Development 
The resource-based view of the firm seeks to explain how organizations develop and maintain competitive advantage using firm-specific resources and capabilities (Wernerfelt, 1984). According to this perspective, resources are assets or inputs to production that an organization owns or accesses (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003); while capabilities are the ability to use resources to achieve organizational goals (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Helfat & Lieberman, 2002). The basic premise is that resources and capabilities increase the efficiency and effectiveness of firms (Barney, 1991). One central area of recent investigation has been the development of resources to create competitive advantages through innovation (Ahuja & Katila, 2004; Leonard-Barton, 1992). For example, researchers have sought to understand how the (dynamic) capabilities of firms make them effective at the development of new products and processes (Rindova & Kotha, 2001; Smith, Collins, & Clark, 2005). 

Although this work has focused on explaining why some established firms outperform other established firms (e.g., Miller, 2003), researchers could use this perspective to explain why new firms—firms that do not yet have these resources— are effective at innovation. A second central area of recent investigation has been the contingent value of resources. According to this view, which builds on the environmental contingency approach in organizational theory (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), firm resources do not exist in isolation, but their value is influenced by the environments in which the firms are found (e.g., Priem & Butler, 2001). 

For instance, Barney (1991) explained that the environmental context in which an asset is applied will influence whether or not the asset is a resource. Empirical work has confirmed the contingent value of resources on the performance of veterinary practices (Brush & Artz, 1999), on strategic changes in savings and loans institutions (Zajac, Kraatz, & Bresser, 2000), and on the performance of film studios (Miller & Shamsie, 1996). However, none of these studies have examined the contingency perspective in the context of innovation, as is done in this study. Yet for high-technology firms, innovation is one of the main sources of competitive advantage. Contingency theory has a long tradition of discussing how different dimensions of the external environment interact with organizational attributes. We focus on four dimensions that are especially relevant to innovation: the degree of competition in an environment (Pfeffer & Leblebici, 1973), the availability of financial resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), manufacturing intensity (Thompson, 19 67), and market size (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).（essay代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多essay代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有essay代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X（essay代写)