JBR-08278; No of Pages 9

Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model
Joo J.M. Ferreira a,, Cristina I. Fernandes b, Helena Alves a, Mrio L. Raposo a
a
b

University of Beira Interior and NECE: Research Unit in Business Sciences, Estrada do Sineiro, 6200-209 Covilh, Portugal
Polytechnic Institute Castelo Branco and NECE: Research Unit in Business Sciences, Palacete das Palmeiras, 6060-163 Idanha-a-Nova, Portugal

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 7 February 2014
Received in revised form 7 September 2014
Accepted 29 January 2015
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Innovative capacity
Innovation strategy
Managing innovation
Tidd and Bessant (2009) model

a b s t r a c t
Despite innovation's importance in rm strategy and competitiveness, most innovation research fails to examine
some important questions relating to innovation. This study focuses on two innovation management issues:
Identication of determinants of the innovation management process and the implications of these determinants
for rm innovation performance. Building on Tidd and Bessant's (2009) conceptual model, this study examines
innovation capacity constructs within innovation management structures.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Innovation is crucial to attaining economic and social success in
today's globalized business world (Senge, Carstedt, & Porter, 2006). However, scholars have yet to clearly dene, fully develop, and fully understand innovation (Mazzarol & Reboud, 2011). Schumpeter (1934) is a
pioneer in recognizing innovation as fundamental to generating economic development. As a process, innovation incorporates management activities and decision-making at individual and organizational levels. The skill
with which rms perform their daily tasks, confront risks, and invest time
and money in organizations determines how innovation outputs arise
(Cooper, 1998; Mazzarol & Reboud, 2011). Environmental uncertainty
and complexity shape rms' innovation management (Tidd, 2001). Conguring resources according to consumers' needs or market conditions
requires great exibility (Mazzarol & Reboud, 2011; Tidd, 2001). Hence,
rms' innovation ability allows them to compete and perform better
than competitors do (Barney, 1991; Day, 1994). Thus, application of resources and capacities affects innovation level (Grant, 1996; Lowendahl,
1997) and organizational success (Penrose, 1959). Hence, studying factors that foster innovation is fundamental (Fernandes, Ferreira, &
Marques, 2012; Ferreira, Raposo, & Fernandes, 2012; Koc & Ceylan, 2007).
Despite innovation's universal importance to organizations across
different sectors, most studies focus on case studies or a single sector
(Ettlie & Rosenthal, 2011; Miles, 2005). Furthermore, the literature

The authors are grateful to funding from the Portuguese Science Foundation (PEst-OE/
EGE/UI0403/2014) through NECE: Research Unit in Business Sciences.
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jjmf@ubi.pt (J.J.M. Ferreira), cristina.fernandes@ipcb.pt
(C.I. Fernandes), halves@ubi.pt (H. Alves), mraposo@ubi.pt (M.L. Raposo).

fails to explain causes of innovation management differences by sector.

The need for a common conceptualization of managing innovation processes represents a major gap in the literature. Tidd and Bessant (2009)
(T&B) contribute to innovation management by presenting a veconstruct innovation model comprising strategy, organization, process,
learning, and networking. Although T&B offer a notable innovation process model, no studies discuss applications of the model. This study,
therefore, empirically tests T&B's managing innovation model and evaluates the extent to which the model adjusts to business sectors.
Section 2 discusses the literature on resource theory, capacity theory, and innovation drivers. Section 3 describes the empirical method.
Section 4 presents results. Finally, Section 5 discusses conclusions.
2. Managing innovation: the T&B model
According to the Oslo Manual (OECD, 1997), non-technological innovation covers all innovation types including those not exclusively
pertaining to introducing new technologies, making signicant changes
in goods and services, and using new processes. Perspectives on innovation vary according to measurement and analysis, the object on focus,
the inherent concepts, strategic considerations, and the methodology
and models (Souitaris, 2002). Recent research focuses on identifying
and characterizing rms and factors driving innovation (Lemon &
Sahota, 2004). According to the T&B model, measurement of rms' innovative capacities depends on strategy, organization, learning, processes, and networks.
2.1. Strategy
Numerous authors study strategic innovation (Rumelt, Schendel, &
Teece, 1994; Thakur & Hale, 2012). When studying strategic innovation,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021
0148-2963/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Ferreira, J.J.M., et al., Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model, Journal of Business Research
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021

J.J.M. Ferreira et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

scholars consider innovation as simultaneously market oriented and

strategic (de Brentani, 1989; Laing, 1993; Sundbo, 1997). Scholars posit
strategy as an inspiration for innovation. Firms instill management policies that satisfy consumer demands. To meet demands, rms deploy internal resources and encourage new ideas (Sundbo, 1997; Teece, 1992).
Some studies (Koc & Ceylan, 2007; Macdonald & Williams, 1994) report
that new ideas, fundamental for a rm's innovative capacities, depend on
knowledge creation. Alongside the importance of generating new ideas
is the use and dissemination of such knowledge inside rms (Monge,
Cozzens, & Contractor, 1992). Firm structure and organization, an appropriate innovation strategy, and communication of the strategy to employees represent fundamental factors for innovation (Lemon & Sahota,
2004; Roberts & Berry, 1985; Slappendel, 1996; Wheelwright & Clark,
1995). Practical consequences of these factors include encouraging
members of staff to participate in innovation processes as a means of
driving further innovation (Slappendel, 1996; Wei & Wang, 2011;
Wheelwright & Clark, 1995).
2.2. Process
Diverse studies consider innovation to be the sum of functionally innovative events implemented in mutually interrelated stages and consecutive processes (Bernstein & Singh, 2006; Guan & Chen, 2010;
Nelson, 1993; Roper, Dub, & Loveb, 2008; Rothwell, 1994). Edquist
and Hommen (1999), in their more systemic vision of innovation, describe innovation as a process that relates diverse resources and capacities. Indeed, studies addressing innovation as a process are numerous
(Bernstein & Singh, 2006; Brown & Svenson, 1998; Cantisani, 2006;
Chen & Guan, 2011; Galanakis, 2006; Guan & Chen, 2010; Rothwell,
1994). The T&B model describes innovation as a process inherent in organizational renewal, product and service revival, and production and
distribution means. All rms try to organize and manage innovationrelated processes to identify and generate optimal solutions (Tidd &
Bessant, 2009). The effectiveness of innovation processes depends on
organizational culture (Koc & Ceylan, 2007). Management practices
and processes use team orientation and management to drive innovation (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Chen & Guan,
2011). Hence, a rm's innovative capacities interrelate with their capacity to introduce new processes (Cantisani, 2006; Guan & Chen, 2010).
Process innovation may thereby include innovating in products, meeting specic and different consumer needs, and acquiring technology
(Cooper, 1998; Koc & Ceylan, 2007; Roberts & Berry, 1985).
2.3. Organization
Organizational innovation involves introducing new methodologies
to manage internal and external rm relationships (OECD, 2005).
Innovation within organizational environments necessarily involves
new methodologies, responsibilities redistribution, and decision-making
concerning labor division and structuring new activities (Armbruster,
Bikfalvi, Kinkel, & Lay, 2008; Armbruster et al., 2006; Birkinshaw,
Hamel, & Mol, 2008; Camisn & Villar-Lopez, 2012). Organizational innovation represents a key sustainable resource for generating competitive
advantage (Camisn & Villar-Lopez, 2012; Hamel, 2006, 2007). Internal
organizational capacitiessuch as technologies (Afuah, 2002), marketing
(Day, 1994), integration factors (Fowler, King, Marsh, & Victor, 2000;
Wang & Ahmed, 2004), R&D (Deeds, 2001), and culture (Bogner &
Thomas, 1994)bear important consequences for rm innovation. A
pro-knowledge creation and dissemination culture among employees
with different capacities enable rms to resolve problems and create synergies (Amabile et al., 1996; Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan, 1998; Lemon
& Sahota, 2004). Nevertheless, as Dussage, Hart, and Ramanantsoa (1992)
report, the choice of an appropriate organizational strategy or culture depends on costs, deadlines, and risks the rm may incur. Other researchers
defend a pro-innovation orientation, where by organizational culture

drives innovation (Hult, Hurley, & Knight, 2004; Hurley & Hult, 1998;
Keskin, 2006; Lee & Tsai, 2005; Ussahawanitchakit, 2008).
2.4. Learning
Management theories emphasize the crucial relationship between innovation and learning in attaining and maintaining competitive advantage (Baker & Sinkula, 2002; Brockmand & Morgan, 2003; Darroch &
McNaugton, 2002; Dodgson, 1993; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Garvin, 1993;
Gnyawali, Steward, & Grant, 1997; Nevis, Dibella, & Gould, 1995;
Vrakking, 1990; Wolfe, 1994). Researchers defending this position report
that learning dominates all innovation-based activities and increases
rms' exibility regarding innovation processes (Brown & Eisenhard,
1995; Jimnez & Sanz-Valle, 2011; Miles & Snow, 1978; WeerdNederhof, Pacitti, da Silva Gomes, & Pearson, 2002). Learning, innovation,
and performance interrelates positively (Keskin, 2006; Lee & Tsai, 2005;
Salavou & Lioukas, 2003). According to these authors, innovation requires
individuals to acquire and convey knowledge throughout the organization. Knowledge acquisition always depends on the organization's core
knowledge (Salavou & Lioukas, 2003). Greater core knowledge, gives organizational members greater capacity to absorb knowledge from the environment (Chang & Cho, 2008; Darroch & McNaugton, 2002). As Nonaka
(1994) proposes, innovation occurs whenever employees share their
knowledge with the rm. Yli-Renko, Autio, and Sapienza (2001) report
a positive correlation between knowledge acquisition and product innovation levels. Chang and Cho (2008) verify that sharing memories, using
external information, and implementing formal processes collectively expand the knowledge reserve, thus enabling innovation. Other authors
argue that investing in internal research and development, outsourcing
such practices, or engaging in research-based networks are the factors
that enhance and drive innovation capacities (Castellani & Zanfei, 2004;
Frenz & Ietto-Gillies, 2007; Fu, Diez, & Schiller, 2012; Moritra &
Krishnamoorthy, 2004).
2.5. Networking
The original and broadest approach to explaining why rms cooperate is the resource-based view. Wernerfelt (1984) claims that inter-rm
collaboration is essential to use complementary resources. From this
viewpoint, rms represent resource sets, and the most common motive
for cooperative relationships is resource interdependence. Firms ally
simply because they are not self-sufcient; through cooperation, rms
reduce uncertainty and access other resources (Chesnais, 1991; Dosi,
1982; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), especially technological resources
(Hagedoorn, 1993). Hagedoorn (1993) explains that rms cooperate
considering market and industry conditions. Particularly in sectors
with high interdependence and complexity levels, technological

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

Please cite this article as: Ferreira, J.J.M., et al., Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model, Journal of Business Research
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021

J.J.M. Ferreira et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

complementarities prove an important motive. Other motivations in the

literature include access to new markets and time reduction of innovation process (Arora & Gambardella, 1994; Hagedoorn, 1993; Rycroft &
Kash, 2004). Gulati and Gargiulo (1998) analyze how network-type
choice creates concerns about coordination and appropriation costs.
Ahuja (2000) argues that rms' commercial, social, capital, and technological realities shape network formation. Hence, rms building and
participating in networks represent an important factor for innovation
(Rampersad et al., 2010). Fig. 1 depicts the T&B model's ve constructs
of managing innovation processes.

42.47 8.22, 50.3% had attained graduate level educational qualications, and 13.5% had attained only the minimum educational level.
Regarding location, 31.2% of these businesses were in rural surroundings. In the most recent year (2012), 33.0% of rms received
500,000 in revenue, whereas 16.4% received less than 50,000 in
revenue. The sample's structure ensured equal representation of
Portugal's 22 mainland and archipelago regions. Finally, 46 owners
or managers responded to questionnaires either face-to-face or via
telephone.

3.2. Methods
3. Method
3.1. Sample
The study sample is comprised of 1000 Portuguese rms with an average of 6.99 6.39 years in business: 10% were agricultural rms, 60%
were service rms, 20% were transformative industrial rms, 5% were
construction rms, and 5% were extractive industrial rms. Regarding
managers' characteristics, 11.5% were female with an average age of

Tables 1 and 2 summarizing qualitative variables report frequencies

and percentages for each category. Tables display medians, mean, minimums, maximums, and standard deviation (SD) for quantitative
variables.
Analysis consisted of ve MANOVA estimates for innovation performance (low innovation performance, medium innovation performance,
and high innovation performance). Eight items forming each of the ve
constructs in the T&B model (strategy, process, organization, learning,

Table 1
Item description.
Construct

Item

Item description

Measure

Strategy

S1
S2
S3

Employees recognize innovation's importance in competitiveness.

The rm shares innovation strategies with employees, and employees are aware of targets.
Employees understand and recognize that for the organization to remain competitive, distinctive
competence(s) are necessary.
The rm anticipates threats and opportunities (through forecasting techniques).
Senior managers perceive innovation to be a determinant factor in future rm development.
The rm's senior management demonstrates commitment to supporting innovation.
The organization deploys mechanisms to analyze new technological and market developments,
assessing their impact on organizational strategy.
A link exists between innovation projects and all business strategies.
The rm employs mechanisms that help design, develop, and launch new products.
Firms normally implement innovation projects within deadlines and budgets.
The rm uses mechanisms to verify that employees fully understand all consumer needs
(not only regarding marketing).
The rm implements management mechanisms to tailor procedures and succeed.
The rm systematically researches ideas for new products.
The rm uses mechanisms guaranteeing the involvement of all departments in developing new
products and processes.
The rm deploys a clear system for selecting innovative project.
The rm system is exible and encourages rapid implementation of small-scale projects.
Firm structure does not compromise but rather fosters innovation.
Employees work well together and across departmental borders.
Employees suggest ideas for better products and processes.
The rm structure enables swift decision-making.
Communication between hierarchical levels is functional and effective.
The rm adopts a pro-innovation support and reward system.
The rm fosters creativity and new ideas and encourages employees to submit proposals pro-actively.
The rm works well as a team (or in teams).
The rm displays a high level of commitment to employee training.
The rm reviews employee projects to improve them and achieve better performance levels in
subsequent actions.
The rm works with universities and other research centers to build knowledge resources.
The rm systematically compares products and processes with those of its competitors.
The rm shares experiences with other rms, thereby achieving a better understanding.
The rm registers and records its developments to benet employees.
The rm learns from other rms.
The rm seeks to identify where and when the rm may improve innovative performance.
The rm maintains good relationships (winwin) with suppliers.
The rm reports a thorough understanding of consumers' needs.
The rm analyzes its errors to improve its activities and processes.
The rm works closely with consumers to develop new concepts.
The rm collaborates closely with other rms to develop new products and processes.
The rm attempts to develop external networks with individuals who can assist the rm
(e.g., with specialists in specic elds).
The rm shares its needs and skills with education sector entities.
The rm works closely with end users to develop new products and services.
Low innovation performance
Medium innovation performance
High innovation performance

Likert type scale: 1 not at all important;

7 very important
= 0.72

S4
S5
S6
S7

Process

S8
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6

Organization

Learning

Networking

Innovation
performance

P7
P8
O1
O2
O3
O4
O5
O6
O7
O8
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
N1
N2
N3
N4
N5
N6
N7
N8
LIP
MIP
HIP

Likert type scale: 1 not at all important;

7 very important
= 0.88

Likert type scale: 1 Not at all important;

7 Very important
= 0.73

Likert type scale: 1 not at all important;

7 very important
= 0.87

Likert type scale: 1 not at all important;

7 very important
= 0.62

0 innovation
1 innovation
2 innovation

Please cite this article as: Ferreira, J.J.M., et al., Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model, Journal of Business Research
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021

J.J.M. Ferreira et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Table 2
Firm innovation performance.
Innovation performance

Sector

Firm age (years)

Location
Revenue in the last nancial
year (approximate)

Agriculture
Services
Industry transformative
Extractive industry
Construction
Average SD
Urban
Rural
b50,000
[50,000 to 100,000 [
[100,000 to 200,000 [
[200,000 to 300,000 [
[300,000 to 400,000 [
[400,000 to 500,000 [
b500,000

Low innovation
performance

Medium innovation
performance

High innovation
performance

100
333
151
0
0
6.42 6.05
423
161
89
56
36
82
13
7
301

100.0
55.5
75.5
0.0
0.0

0
139
49
50
50
6.84 6.89
149
139
37
36
29
13
60
101
12

0.0
23.2
24.5
100.0
100.0

0
128
0
0
0
9.88 5.98
116
12
38
28
30
9
2
4
17

0.0
21.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

61.5
51.6
54.3
46.7
37.9
78.8
17.3
6.3
91.2

21.7
44.6
22.6
30.0
30.5
12.5
80.0
90.2
3.6

16.9
3.8
23.2
23.3
31.6
8.7
2.7
3.6
5.2

0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000

p b 0.001.

and networking) were dependent variables in the MANOVAs. Subsequently, ANOVA with a single factor (innovation performance) evaluated which items were signicantly different to apply the Tukey post-hoc
test. Furthermore, chi-squared independence tests identied signicant
differences between rms' innovation performance.
3.3. Variable measurements
The original items in the T&B (2009) model measured the ve constructs in Table 1. The innovation performance variable had three levels:
low innovation performance (for rms reporting zero innovation), medium innovation performance (for rms reporting one innovation), and
high innovation performance (for rms reporting more than one innovation). The reference year was 2012.
4. Results
4.1. Innovation performance
Of all managers, 58.4% report low innovation performance, 28.8%
medium innovation performance, and only 12.8% high innovation performance. Table 2 presents a ranking of rms' characteristics by innovation performance.
Results reveal signicant differences (p b 0.001) between innovation
performance in different business sectors. Firms reporting high innovation performance all belong to the service sector (21.3%). All agricultural
rms and 75.5% of transformative industrial rms report low innovation
performance. All rms in the extractive industrial and construction sectors report medium innovation performance. Firms with high innovation
performance (9.88 5.98) are signicantly more mature (p b 0.001)
than rms reporting low (6.42 6.05) or medium (6.84 6.89) innovation performance. Regarding location, rms located in urban areas report
signicantly (p b 0.001) higher proportions of high performance levels
(16.9%) than do rms in rural environments (3.8%). Firms reporting
low innovation performance also generate less revenue than rms with
high innovation performance do. Firms achieving the highest innovation
performance are mature, urban-based service-sector rms with revenues of less than 200,000.
4.2. Managing innovation processes
This study analyzes the importance of each construct of the innovation management process using average scores (with a scale ranging

from 1 = not important to 7 = very important) and standard deviations

for each construct (i.e., strategy, process, organization, learning, and
networking). These data appear in Table 1.

4.2.1. Strategy
Fig. 2 shows average rm innovation performance scores for the
strategy construct. Analysis yields signicant differences between
rms with different innovation performance in all items (except S6
and S8). In particular, items S1 (rm employees recognize innovation's
importance for competitiveness) and S7 (rm has mechanisms to analyze technological and market developments and evaluate these developments' effect on rm strategy) are more important to rms with high
innovation than to other rms.
Firms with high innovation place more value on mechanisms for analyzing developments in technologies and markets and for analyzing these
developments' effect on the organization's strategy than other rms do.
Firms reporting low innovation rates focus less than other rms do on:
sharing innovation strategies with all employees (i.e., ensuring employees
are aware of the rm's targets); employees' recognition of competencies
that make the rm competitive; and innovation as a determinant of the
rm's development among the professionals holding senior management
positions.

4.2.2. Process
Signicant differences between rms with different innovation performance appear in the eight items composing the process construct
(Fig. 3). Firms with high innovation performance attribute greater importance to all the process-related items. Notable items are P1 (rm
has mechanisms to help design and launch new ideas), P5 (rm systematically researches new product ideas), and P7 (rm has a clear system
for choosing innovation projects).

4.2.3. Organization
Signicant differences between rms with different innovation performance appear in the eight items composing the organization construct (Fig. 4). High-innovation rms emphasize fostering innovation,
using support systems, rewarding innovation initiatives, and ensuring
good organization and teamwork. Medium-innovation rms emphasize
staff members' involvement to generate ideas that improve products
and processes. Low-innovation rms emphasize structures conducive
to assistance and swift decision-making.

Please cite this article as: Ferreira, J.J.M., et al., Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model, Journal of Business Research
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021

J.J.M. Ferreira et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Low Innovation Performance

Medium Innovation Performance

High Innovation Performance

8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
S1***

S2***

S3***

S4***

S5***

S6

S7***

S8

Median SD of the strategy construct items by innovation performance (* p < 0.05, **

p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001)
Fig. 2. Strategy by innovation performance. Median SD of the strategy construct items by innovation performance (*p b 0.05, **p b 0.01, ***p b 0.001).

4.2.4. Learning
Fig. 5 displays average scores by rm type for each item in the
learning construct.
Signicant differences arise in all eight items in this construct. In
items L1 (major commitment to employee training), L5 (rm shares experiences with other rms), and L6 (rm records its development progress for other organizational staff members' benet), rms reporting
high innovation levels report signicantly higher average scores than
medium and low-innovation rms do. Low-innovation rms report signicantly lower scores on items L2 (rm reviews projects to improve
subsequent actions) and L8 (rm deploys measures to identify when
and where to improve innovation) than do other rms. Conversely,
low-innovation rms report signicantly higher scores than do other
rms for items L3 (rm works with universities and other research centers that may help in advancing knowledge), L4 (rm systematically
compares products and processes with competitors), and L7 (rm
learns from other organizations).

Low Innovation Performance

Firms with high innovation performance emphasize L1 (training

staff) and L6 (documenting development progress for other organizational members' benet) more than do medium- and low-innovation
rms. Medium-and high-innovation rms emphasize L5 (sharing experiences with other rms and understanding these rms) and L8 (using
measures that identify how, where, and when the rms may innovate)
more than do rms with low innovation performance. Low-innovation
rms emphasize L3 (working with universities and research centers
that may help in raising knowledge levels), L4 (systematically comparing products and processes with competitors), and L7 (learning from
other organizations) more than middle- and high-innovation rms do.
4.2.5. Networking
Signicant differences between rms with different innovation
performance appear in the eight items composing the networking
construct (Fig. 6). Firms reporting high innovation performance emphasize N5 (collaborating with other rms in product or process

Medium Innovation Performance

High Innovation Performance

8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
P1***

P2***

P3***

P4***

P5***

P6***

P7***

P8***

Median SD of the process construct items by innovation performance (* p < 0.05, **

p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001)
Fig. 3. Process by innovation performance. Median SD of the process construct items by innovation performance (*p b 0.05, **p b 0.01, ***p b 0.001).

Please cite this article as: Ferreira, J.J.M., et al., Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model, Journal of Business Research
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021

J.J.M. Ferreira et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Low Innovation Performance

Medium Innovation Performance

High Innovation Performance

8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
O1***

O2***

O3***

O4***

O5***

O6***

O7

O8***

Median SD of the organization construct items by innovation performance (* p <

0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001)
Fig. 4. Organization by innovation performance. Median SD of the organization construct items by innovation performance (*p b 0.05, **p b 0.01, ***p b 0.001).

development). Medium-innovation rms emphasize the importance

of N1 (good relations with suppliers), N2 (grasping consumers'
needs), N3 (analyzing errors to improve on activities and processes),
N5 (collaborating in developing new products or processes), N7
(sharing needs and competences with educational entities), and N8
(working closely with users of new products and services). Firms
achieving high-innovation performance emphasize N8 (working
closely with consumers to develop new concepts).
5. Results, discussion, and managerial implications
The literature reports innovation's relevance not only for business
competitiveness but also for regional development. This study broadens
analysis of innovation-related activities by applying T&B's conceptual
model to empirical data. Testing the T&B model identies characteristics
that differentiate rms with high, medium, and low innovation. Mature
rms in urban areas report the highest innovation levels. Results corroborate theoretical ndings regarding innovation and sector: Service rms
Low Innovation Performance

are more innovative than rms in other sectors are (Lemon & Sahota,
2004).
Most variables in the strategy construct reect statistically signicant
differences between rms with high innovation performance and rms
with medium and low innovation performance. Sundbo (1997) and
Teece (1992) posit these differences. Thus, the study highlights two factors that drive innovation: employee awareness of innovation's importance to rm competitiveness, and employee understanding of the
correlation between distinctive competences and rm competitiveness
(Lemon & Sahota, 2004; Roberts & Berry, 1985; Slappendel, 1996;
Wheelwright & Clark, 1995). Similarly, rms strive to inform employees
of targets, work toward anticipating threats, and capitalize on opportunities in the environment. These rms' leaders perceive innovation to be a
determining factor in rm development and develop mechanisms for systematically analyzing new technological and marketplace developments
to foster innovation. Thus, as per the T&B (2009) model, rms that develop clearly innovative strategies and that share and foster corresponding
goals can achieve high innovation performance. Senior management's

Medium Innovation Performance

High Innovation Performance

8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
L1***

L2***

L3***

L4***

L5***

L6***

L7***

L8***

Median SD of the learning construct items by innovation performance (* p < 0.05, **

p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001)
Fig. 5. Learning by innovation performance. Median SD of the learning construct items by innovation performance (*p b 0.05, **p b 0.01, ***p b 0.001).

Please cite this article as: Ferreira, J.J.M., et al., Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model, Journal of Business Research
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021

J.J.M. Ferreira et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Low Innovation Performance

Medium Innovation Performance

High Innovation Performance

8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
N1***

N2***

N3***

N4***

N5***

N6***

N7***

N8***

Median SD of the networking construct items by innovation performance (* p < 0.05,

** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001)
Fig. 6. Networking by innovation performance. Median SD of the networking construct items by innovation performance (*p b 0.05, **p b 0.01, ***p b 0.001).

commitment to innovation and the link between rm strategy and innovation are not signicant enough to differentiate between rms. This nding indicates that although all rms show concern for innovation-related
issues (high average response rate), some rms fail to establish the processes necessary for innovation.
Results reveal signicant differences between rms with high innovation performance and rms with low and medium innovation performance for the eight items composing the process construct. Amabile
et al. (1996), and Chen and Guan (2011) posit that rms with the
greatest innovation potential implement management processes to
search for new product ideas, offer support to manage new ideas, and involve all departments in management processes (i.e., exibly controlling
deadlines, budgets, and innovative projects). However, these processes
also require external orientation and support mechanisms to succeed.
Results reveal signicant differences between rms with high innovation performance and rms with low innovation performance for the
eight items composing the organization construct. Organizational culture proves a fundamental innovation driver (Hult et al., 2004; Hurley
& Hult, 1998; Keskin, 2006; Lee & Tsai, 2005; Ussahawanitchakit,
2008). Teamwork, ease of horizontal and vertical communication, innovation incentives and reward systems, and an innovation-friendly environment constitute the organizational culture factors fundamental to
attaining high innovation performance. Despite signicant differences
in all variables, the most signicant differences are between mediuminnovation rms and rms with low and high innovation in developing
ideas and suggestions for innovation. This result indicates that, because
of organizational shortcomings, rms with low innovation levels do not
gather employees' innovation-related suggestions and ideas. Highinnovation rms, in contrast, may have specialist groups dedicated to
idea generation and may therefore have no need to collect employees'
ideas. On average, medium-innovation rms score more highly on
items measuring structures that enable rapid decision-making than
rms with low and high innovation performance do. This nding calls
for analysis within organizations to ascertain whether a correlation between these two factors exists. Small rms may have atter hierarchies,
which enable communication. Conversely, large rms deploy highly developed, highly institutionalized communication systems.
Scholars report learning process as fundamental in all innovationrelated activities (Brown & Eisenhard, 1995; Jimnez & Sanz-Valle,
2011; Miles & Snow, 1978; Weerd-Nederhof et al., 2002). Results partially conrm this importance. Results show signicant differences between

rms with different innovation performance in all variables measuring

organizational learning. In some cases, however, rms reporting low innovation performance report the highest overall scores. Hence, rms
with high innovation performance engage in several activities to boost
innovation. These rms train staff, dedicate time to reviewing projects
to achieve future improvements, share experiences with other rms, record knowledge, and apply measures to identify improvement opportunities. These ndings are consistent with those of earlier studies (Keskin,
2006; Lee & Tsai, 2005; Salavou & Lioukas, 2003) that report a positive
correlation between organizational learning and innovation. However,
rms with low innovation levels are the rms that most commonly
work with universities and research centers, systematically compare
processes and products with competitors, and learn from other organizations. These results would seem contradictory because such rms struggle to develop internal innovations and may thus seek external solutions.
Finally, results for the networking construct corroborate those of
previous studies that highlight networking as fundamental for innovation
(Rampersad et al., 2010). Networking enables rms to raise resource
levels (Wernerfelt, 1984) and boost capacities (Barney, 1991). The exception to these results is item N4 (the rm works closely with its consumers
to develop new concepts). For this item, rms with the lowest innovation
performance return average response rates that are slightly higher than
those of rms with medium and high innovation performance. These
scores suggest that all rms, irrespective of their innovation performance,
maintain close relationships with consumers to grasp consumer needs,
even when this practice does not result in innovations.
6. Conclusions
This study uses a sample of rms from different economic sectors to
identify determinants of innovation management processes and examine these determinants' implications for rm innovation performance.
The study bases its analysis on the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model. Results show that the T&B model proves appropriate in explaining rms'
innovative capacity. However, some model variables return contradictory results and therefore need further validation.
This study adds to existing research by characterizing rms and identifying factors that drive innovation. Nevertheless, this study presents results of an application of the model in only one country. Future studies
should test the T&B model further by observing which resource and capacity types rms deploy for innovation and how these rms do so

Please cite this article as: Ferreira, J.J.M., et al., Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model, Journal of Business Research
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021

J.J.M. Ferreira et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

(i.e., the extent of specialization or complexity resources) (Wernerfelt,

2013). Another promising area concerns studying innovation strategies'
longitudinal dynamics, which may have a long-term effect on innovative
capacity.
References
Afuah, A. (2002). Mapping technological capabilities into product markets and competitive advantage: The case of cholesterol drugs. Strategic Management Journal, 23,
171179.
Ahuja, G. (2000). The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interrm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 317343.
Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the
work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5),
11541184.
Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., & Lay, G. (2008). Organizational Innovation: The
challenge of measuring non-technological innovation in large-scale surveys.
Technovation, 28, 644657.
Armbruster, H., Kirner, E., Lay, G., Szwejezewski, M., Corita, B., & Legvehemec, C. (2006).
Patterns of organizational change in European Industry: Ways to strengthen the empirical basis of research and policy. DG Enterprise and Industry: Innovation policy unit.
Financial Report. Karlsruhe: Institute Systems and Innovation Research.
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1994). Evaluating technological information and utilizing it.
Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 24(1), 91114.
Baker, E., & Sinkula, M. (2002). Market orientation, learning orientation and product
innovation: Delving into the organization's black box. Journal of Market Focus
Management, 5(1), 523.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm sources and competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
99120.
Bernstein, B., & Singh, J. (2006). An integrated innovation process model based on practices of Australian biotechnology rms. Technovation, 26(56), 561572.
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of
Management Review, 33(4), 825.
Bogner, W. C., & Thomas, H. (1994). Core competence and competitive advantage: A
model and illustrative evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. In G. Hamel,
& A. Heene (Eds.), Competence-based competition (pp. 111144). New York:
Wiley.
Brockmand, B., & Morgan, F. (2003). The role of existing knowledge in new product innovativeness and performance. Decision Sciences, 32(2), 385419.
Brown, G., & Eisenhard, M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present ndings
and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 385419.
Brown, G., & Svenson, A. (1998). Measuring R&D productivity. Research Technology
Management, 41(6), 3035.
Camisn, C., & Villar-Lopez, A. (2012). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and rm performance. Journal of Business Research,
67(1), 28912902.
Cantisani, A. (2006). Technological innovation processes revisited. Technovation, 26(11),
12941301.
Castellani, D., & Zanfei, A. (2004). Choosing international linkage strategies in the electronic industry: The role of multinational experience. Journal of Economic Behaviour
and Organization, 53(4), 447475.
Chang, R., & Cho, H. (2008). Organizational memory inuences new product success.
Journal of Business Research, 61, 1323.
Chen, K., & Guan, J. (2011). Mapping the innovation production process from accumulative advantage to economic outcomes: A path modeling approach. Technovation,
31(7), 336346.
Chesnais, F. (1991). Technological competitiveness considered as a form of structural
competitiveness. In J. Noisi (Ed.), Technology and National Competitiveness. Quebec,
Canada: Mcgill-Queens University Press.
Cooper, R. (1998). A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation.
Management Decision, 36(8), 493502.
Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998). Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: The role of environmental change. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, 15, 124.
Darroch, J., & McNaugton, R. (2002). Examining the link between knowledge management practices and types of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(3),
210222.
Day, S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing,
58(4), 3752.
de Brentani, U. (1989). Success and failure in new industrial services. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 6(6), 239258.
Deeds, L. (2001). The role of R&D intensity, technical development, and absorptive capacity in creating entrepreneurial wealth in high technology start-ups. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 18, 2947.
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organizational
Studies, 14(3), 375394.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 2,
147162.
Dussage, P., Hart, S., & Ramanantsoa, B. (1992). Strategic technology management.
New York: Wiley.
Edquist, C., & Hommen, J. (1999). Systems of innovation: Theory and policy for the demand side. Technology in Society, 21(1), 6379.
Ettlie, J., & Rosenthal, R. (2011). Services versus manufacturing innovation. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 28(2), 285299.

Fernandes, C., Ferreira, J., & Marques, C. (2012). Innovation management capabilities in
rural and urban knowledge intensive business services: Empirical evidence. Service
Business. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11628-013-0225-7 (Advance online publication
(December 2013)).
Ferreira, J., Raposo, M., & Fernandes, C. (2012). Do the innovative capabilities of knowledge intensive business services actually differ from other industries? The Service
Industries Journal, 33(78), 734748.
Fiol, M., & Lyles, A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review,
10(4), 102106.
Fowler, W., King, W., Marsh, J., & Victor, B. (2000). Beyond products: New strategic imperatives for developing competencies in dynamic environments. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 17, 357377.
Frenz, M., & Ietto-Gillies, G. (2007). Does multinationality affect the propensity to innovate? An analysis of the third UK Community Innovation Survey. International
Review of Applied Economics, 21(1), 99117.
Fu, W., Diez, J., & Schiller, D. (2012). Interactive learning, informal networks and innovation:
Evidence from electronics rm survey in the Pearl River Delta, China. Research Policy,
42(3), 635646.
Galanakis, K. (2006). Innovation process. Make sense using systems thinking. Technovation,
26(11), 12221232.
Garvin, D. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4),
7891.
Gnyawali, R., Steward, C., & Grant, H. (1997). Creation and utilization of organizational
knowledge: An empirical study of the roles of organizational learning on strategic
decision-making. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1620.
Grant, M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of rms. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, 109122.
Guan, C., & Chen, H. (2010). Measuring the innovation production process: Across-region
empirical study of China's high-tech innovations. Technovation, 30(56), 348358.
Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1998). Where do inter-organizational networks come from?
American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 14391493.
Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(5), 371385.
Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what and how of management innovation. Harvard Business
Review, 7284.
Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hult, M., Hurley, F., & Knight, A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on
business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 429438.
Hurley, R., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational
learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 4254.
Jimnez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning and performance.
Journal of Business Research, 64, 408417.
Keskin, H. (2006). Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in
SMEs: An extended model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 396417.
Koc, T., & Ceylan, C. (2007). Factors impacting the innovative capacity in large-scale companies. Technovation, 27, 105114.
Laing, A. (1993). Innovation and the service delivery system in the UK life assurance industry. Managing Innovation in Services, proceedings of a conference,
Cardiff, 57 April.
Lee, S., & Tsai, J. (2005). The effects of business operation mode on market orientation,
learning orientation and innovativeness. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
105(3), 325348.
Lemon, M., & Sahota, P. S. (2004). Organizational culture as a knowledge repository for increased innovative capacity. Technovation, 24, 483498.
Lowendahl, R. (1997). Strategic management of professional service rms (2nd ed.).
Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Macdonald, S., & Williams, C. (1994). The survival of the gatekeeper. Research Policy,
23(2), 123132.
Mazzarol, T., & Reboud, S. (2011). Strategic innovation in small rms: An international
analysis of innovation and strategic decision making in small to medium size enterprises.
Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Miles, I. (2005). Innovation in services. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miles, E., & Snow, C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Monge, P., Cozzens, M., & Contractor, N. (1992). Communication and motivational
predictors of the dynamics of organizational innovation. Organization Science,
3, 250274.
Moritra, D., & Krishnamoorthy, M. B. (2004). Global innovation exchange. ResearchTechnology Management, 47(4), 3238.
Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Nevis, E., Dibella, A., & Gould, J. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning systems.
Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 7385.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), 1437.
OECD (1997). Oslo manual (2nd ed.). Paris: European commission.
OECD (2005). Oslo Manual (3rd ed.). Paris: OECD.Eurostat.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the rm. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Rampersad, G. C., Quester, P., & Troshani, I. (2010). Managing innovation networks: Exploratory evidence from ICT, biotechnology and nanotechnology networks.
Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 793805.

Please cite this article as: Ferreira, J.J.M., et al., Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model, Journal of Business Research
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021

J.J.M. Ferreira et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Roberts, E., & Berry, C. (1985). Entering new business: Selecting strategies for success.
Sloan Management Review, 26, 317.
Roper, S., Dub, J., & Loveb, H. (2008). Modeling the innovation value chain. Research Policy,
37(67), 961977.
Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the fth-generation innovation process. International
Marketing Review, 11(1), 731.
Rumelt, P., Schendel, E., & Teece, J. (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy A research
agenda. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Rycroft, W., & Kash, E. (2004). Self-organizing innovation networks: Implications for
globalization. Technovation, 24, 187197.
Salavou, H., & Lioukas, S. (2003). Radical product innovations in SMEs: The dominance of
entrepreneurial orientation. Create Innovation Management, 12(2), 94108.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Senge, M., Carstedt, G., & Porter, L. (2006). Innovating our way to the next industrial revolution. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(2), 2438.
Slappendel, C. (1996). Perspectives on innovation in organizations. Organization Studies,
17(1), 107129.
Souitaris, V. (2002). Technological trajectories as moderators of rm-level determinants
of innovation. Research Policy, 31(6), 877898.
Sundbo, J. (1997). Management of innovation in services. Services Industries Journal,
17(3), 432455.
Teece, J. (1992). Competition, co-operation and innovation. Journal of Economic Behaviour
and Organization, 18(1), 125.
Thakur, R., & Hale, D. (2012). Service innovation: A comparative study of U.S. and Indian
rms. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 11081123.
Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: Environment, organization and
performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 169183.

Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market, and
organizational change. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Ussahawanitchakit, P. (2008). Impacts of organizational learning on innovation orientation and rm efciency: An empirical assessment of accounting rms in Thailand.
International Journal of Business Research, 8(4), 112.
Vrakking, J. (1990). The innovative organization. Long Range Planning, 23(2), 94102.
Wang, L., & Ahmed, K. (2004). The development and validation of the organizational
innovativeness construct using conrmatory factor analysis. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 7, 303313.
Weerd-Nederhof, P., Pacitti, B., da Silva Gomes, J., & Pearson, A. (2002). Tools for the improvement of organization learning processes in innovation. Journal Workplace Learn,
14(8), 320331.
Wei, Y., & Wang, Q. (2011). Making sense of a market information system for superior
performance: The roles of organizational responsiveness and innovation strategy.
Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 267277.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the rm. Strategic Management Journal, 5,
171180.
Wernerfelt, B. (2013). Small forces and large rms: Foundations of the RBV. Strategic
Management Journal, 34, 635643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2043.
Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1995). Leading the product development. New York: Free
Press.
Wolfe, R. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique, and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405431.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and
knowledge exploitation in young technology-based rms. Strategic Management
Journal, 22(67), 587613.

Please cite this article as: Ferreira, J.J.M., et al., Drivers of innovation strategies: Testing the Tidd and Bessant (2009) model, Journal of Business Research
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.021