ARTÍCULOS ORIGINALES
Relationships of business
strategies and organizational
characteristics with innovation
types: Application in service
companies
* PhD in Management Sciences. Universidad ESAN, Lima, Peru. E-mail: jostos@esan.edu.pe. ORCID: 0000-0003-1888-7378.
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=es&user=xaCaOocAAAAJ.
** PhD in Management Sciences. Universidad ESAN, Lima, Peru. E-mail: asaenz@esan.edu.pe. ORCID: 0000-0002-4240-
480X. Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=PWugAS4AAAAJ&hl=es&oi=ao.
*** Dr. Oec. Hochschule Pforzheim, Pforzheim, Germany. E-mail: Kerstin.bremser@hs-pforzheim. ORCID: 0000-0002-8263-
7763. Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.es/citations?hl=es&user=zwwUgxIAAAAJ.
pp. 5-19
rpe.ceipa.edu.co
2389-8186
- 2389-8194
Vol. 6, No. 2
Julio-diciembre de 2019
doi: https://doi.org/10.16967/23898186.595
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO*
ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA**
KERSTIN BREMSER***
RESUMEN
Varios autores sostienen que las prácticas de innovación dependen de las
estrategias de negocio. Por consiguiente, las empresas deben configurar una estructura
organizacional que facilite la coordinación de tareas y permita alcanzar los objetivos. En
una muestra de 203 empresas de servicio se realizó un análisis de la influencia de las
estrategias de negocio y de las características organizacionales en la innovación técnica
y la innovación administrativa. Los resultados indican la existencia de una relación
importante entre la estrategia de negocio y las innovaciones técnicas y administrativas.
Además se encontró que las características organizacionales solo mostraron una relación
significativa con la innovación técnica, pero no así con la innovación administrativa.
PALABRAS CLAVE
tipos de innovación, características organizacionales, estrategias de
negocio.
COMO CITAR ESTE ARTÍCULO
How to cite this article:
Ostos, J., Saenz, A. and
Bremser, K. (2019).
Relationships of business
strategies and organizational
characteristics with innovation
types: Application in service
companies. Revista Perspectiva
Empresarial, 6(2), 5-19.
Recibido: 25 de febrero de 2019
Aprobado: 08 de julio de 2019
ABSTRACT
Various authors maintain that innovation practices depend on business
strategies, therefore companies must configure an organizational structure that facilitates
the coordination of tasks and allows objectives to be reached. In a sample of 203 service
companies, an analysis was carried out of the influence of business strategies and
organizational characteristics on technical innovation and administrative innovation. The
results indicate that there is an important relationship between the business strategy
and the technical and administrative innovations. On the other hand, organizational
characteristics only had a significant relationship with technical innovation but not with
the administrative innovation.
KEY WORDS
Innovation types, organizational characteristics, business strategy.
2389-8186
- 2389-8194
Vol. 6, No. 2
Julio-diciembre de 2019
doi: https://doi.org/10.16967/23898186.595
Relación entre estrategias de negocios y características organizacionales
con los tipos de innovación: aplicación en empresas de servicios
7
ARTÍCULOS
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Relação entre estratégias de negócios e características
organizacionais com os tipos de inovação: aplicação em empresas de
serviços
RESUMO
Vários autores sustem que as práticas de inovação dependem das
estratégias de negócio. Por consequência, as empresas devem configurar uma
estrutura organizacional que facilite a coordenação de tarefas e permita alcançar
os objetivos. Em uma amostra de 203 empresas de serviço se realizou uma análise
da influência das estratégias de negócio e das características organizacionais na
inovação técnica e a inovação administrativa. Os resultados indicam a existência
de uma relação importante entre a estratégia de negócio e as inovações técnicas
e administrativas. Ademais se encontrou que as características organizacionais só
mostraram uma relação significativa com a inovação técnica, mas não assim com a
inovação administrativa.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE
tipos de inovação, características organizacionais, estratégias
de negócio.
8
ARTÍCULOS ORIGINALES
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
Introduction
Organizations work in different environments,
which are interrelated with the type of industry
in which they interact, which indicates that
support a domain position of their products and/or
services in the target market. In this respect, Miles
and Snow (2003) states that the domain position of
the products and/or services takes place through
the adaptive cycle of the organization. Here is
where companies must decide: (i) what products
and/or services to offer? What market to attend
to? (ii) How should the work processes be? (iii)
how do we facilitate innovation? These decisions
are complex and not all managers make decisions
operations, many times the dilemma is whether
to continue operating in the same way or to seek
new opportunities. For example, if the company
decides to create new products and/or search
for new markets, then organizational innovation
should be a vital support, for which the company
should adapt its work structure and coordination
in order to achieve the organizational objectives.
With regard to organizational innovation,
there are many types, but the study of technical
innovation and administrative innovation is
very important because it analyzes better the
differences of the socio-technical system of
the organization; furthermore, these types of
innovation are widely recognized, but at the same
time, they are the least researched (Damanpour,
Walker and Avellaneda, 2009). Meeus and Edquist
(2006) state that there is a variety of innovation
types in companies, but there is also diversity of
innovation results, both by type of company, as
well as by economic sectors, by countries, and by
continents. If innovation is based on continuous
incremental activity, then it is necessary to
consider the analysis of the complementary
relationships that occur between the different
types of innovation (Walker, 2008).
Studies of business strategies have
traditionally been carried out in large corporations
and in developed countries and industries, said
organizations often compete internationally,
therefore the conclusions arrived at may be
different to studies carried out in countries and
industries with smaller scale markets (Borch,
Huse and Senneseth, 1999); we extend the study
in an emerging country with limited international
competition.
The business strategy as a study variable was
analyzed according to the proposal of Miles and
Snow (1978, 2003), who maintain that companies
can adapt to the environment according to
different types of strategy: prospector, analyzer,
or defender; in this investigation we explore the
business strategy as a single variable and we do
not examine it by type of strategy.
Innovation studies have mainly been carried
out in companies from the manufacturing sector,
which are oriented towards a new technological
trajectory, since innovations in the service
sector are not related to a technological line,
the conclusions obtained in manufacturing
organizations cannot be generalized in service
organizations (Damanpour et al., 2009); therefore,
the application of this study in service companies
business sector.
The objective of the study is to analyze
organizational characteristics in the types
of technical and administrative innovation;
additionally, the analysis is extended exploring the
characteristics. Therefore, the study was
literature of the study variables and then
established the hypothesis and the proposal of the
study model; second, the study model was tested
The analysis leads us to address questions
that could be considered by academics and
by entrepreneurs. For example, do business
innovation? Do organizational characteristics
characteristics? The answers to these questions
proposed hypotheses.
9
ARTÍCULOS
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Revision of literature and
hypotheses
Business strategy
of activity of the company, this involves deciding
the types of products and/or services to offer
and in which markets to operate (Damanpour
and Aravind, 2011). One of the best known
types of business strategy are those proposed by
Miles and Snow (1978, 2003) who maintain that
organizations must adapt their adaptive cycle
of operations and resolve their organizational
problems in order to maintain a type of strategy
(Borch et al., 1999). The administrative problem is
of appropriately adapting and relating: (i) the
structure, which is oriented towards the current
activities; (ii) the innovation process, which is
oriented towards future activities (Hékis et al.,
2013; Miles and Snow, 2003).
Based on the adaptive cycle, Miles and Snow
(1978, 2003) state that, in order to achieve
competitive advantages, organizations can
implement different types of business strategies.
Miles and Snow describe four types of strategies:
prospectors, analyzers and defenders, which are
considered feasible; while reactors are considered
as non-feasible. Prospectors create changes in
the industry through the development of new
products, introduction of new technologies, and
search for new markets, among others. Analyzers
are interested in developing commercial ideas and
locating and exploiting new product and market
opportunities. Defenders attempt to maintain a
stable market share with little market exploration
(Borch et al., 1999).
Prospectors continuously seek market
are innovators; on the contrary, defenders pursue
the control of a market segment and dedicate
offering of products and/or services; analyzers
take care of both the product as well as the market
segment, their structures and processes are a
combination of the prospectors and defenders
(Blumentritt and Danis, 2006). Studies that took
into account the types of strategies proposed by
Miles and Snow can be found in Desarbo et al.
(2004), Kabanoff and Brown (2008), and Aragón-
Correa (1998).
The strategies proposed by Miles and Snow
are considered feasible and applicable because
they help resolve the different business problems
(Olson, Slater and Hult, 2005). The strategic
typology proposed by Miles and Snow is probably
the most commonly used by organizations, and
it has been studied in the classic studies and its
application has been proven in multiple studies
(Fiss, 2011).
Technical and administrative
innovation
Innovation is considered an essential
component of competitiveness, which is related
to the organizational structure, the strategies,
the processes, and the products and/or services
produced within the company (Gunday et al.,
2011). Various authors such as Birkinshaw,
Hamel, and Mol (2008), Seaden et al. (2003)
agree that it is the creation and implementation
of new activities to achieve the objective of the
organization.
Innovation management depends on the
adoption of various types of innovation instead
of applying just one (Damanpour et al., 2009).
Jansen, Van Den Bosch and Volberda (2006)
indicate that the management of each type of
innovation requires the adaptation of different
internal factors of the organization.
There are various types of innovation,
analyzed, technical innovation and administrative
innovation are the most important, because they
analyze the differences of the socio-technical
system of the organization (Damanpour et al.,
2009). Technical innovation is directly related to
the main activity of the organization and produces
changes in the operating systems (Damanpour
and Evan, 1984; Walker, Damanpour and Devece,
2011), these changes include: products, service,
and technologies and processes used to produce
10
ARTÍCULOS ORIGINALES
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
products and/or services (Crossan and Apaydin,
2010).
Administrative innovation is related to
the changes carried out in the administrative
management systems, which occur indirectly
of the main activity of the organization
(Damanpour and Evan, 1984; Walker et al.,
related to managerial aspects, the organizational
structure, administrative processes, and human
resource management (Crossan and Apaydin,
2010; Damanpour et al., 2009; Walker et al.,
2011). Administrative innovation has various
denominations, such as organizational innovation,
management innovation, and managerial
innovation (Damanpour and Aravind, 2011).
Seaden et al. (2003) carried out a study
that related business strategies to innovation in
construction companies, the conclusions indicated
the type of business strategy and the capacity
for innovation of the company. There are studies
that relate business strategies with innovation,
the business strategies of Miles and Snow with
the innovation variable, said study was oriented
towards family companies and concluded that
there are differences between the strategic
posture of the company and the type of innovation.
Depending on the type of strategy adopted by an
organization, it is expected that each company will
have: a varied intensity of innovation practices,
and different form of managing its human
resources (Bozkurt and Kalkan, 2014).
Due to all of the above, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H1: The business strategy has a direct and
H2: The business strategy has a direct and
Organizational characteristics
Various authors, such as Daft (2008) and
Mintzberg (1993), state that the organizations
the environment which they are in, they must
also align their organizational characteristics to
promote or regulate the processes through which
they will perform the work and the strategic
objectives will be reached. Daft (2008) states
that in an environment of rapid changes, the
organization needs to operate with organizational
decentralization in decision making, and
horizontal coordination, among others; on the
contrary, in a stable environment, emphasis
must be placed on vertical control, standardized
procedures, and centralization in decision making.
There is little analysis of the relationship
of organizational characteristics with the types
of organization; however, much emphasis has
been placed on the study of centralization,
formalization, and complexity as dimensions
of organizational characteristics, the reason is
of strategic decisions (Fredrickson, 1986). An
analysis of organizational characteristics is
observed in the studies of Olson et al. (2005),
who evaluated formalization, centralization and
specialization as organizational characteristics.
With regard to formalization, Daft (2008) and
Mintzberg (1993) state that formalization is the
design parameter by which work processes are
standardized, through rules, procedures, policy
manuals, job descriptions, work instructions,
etc. Decentralization refers to the decision
making that is transferred to the lower levels
of the organization, when decision making is
maintained in the upper level of the organization
it is denominated centralized (Daft, 2008).
Specialization is the degree to which tasks are
divided in the organization and the degree to
which workers have control in the performance of
tasks (Olson et al., 2005).
Companies place emphasis on certain types of
structure when they resolve their organizational
apply business strategies. There are publications
that relate the way in which the company is
H1(+)
H2 (+)
H5 (+)
H3 (+)
H4 (+)
Business
strategy
Technical
innovation
Organizational
characteristics
Administrative
innovation
11
ARTÍCULOS
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
structured with the type of business strategy; in
this respect, Castro and Higgs (2008) state that
the organizational performance is best explained
when there is a close alignment between
the business strategy and human resource
management. The adoption of strategies is
determined by the characteristics of the resource
of the organization and the way in which they are
combined, also fundamental are the age, the size,
the type of industry and the environment in which
the company is located (Borch et al., 1999).
The managers who pursue different types of
business strategy must coordinate the works in a
differentiated manner, for example, prospectors
require different knowledge to execute their tasks
with regard to the defenders, because they seek
and serve a broader and more dynamic market,
(Kabanoff and Brown, 2008).
Considering the strategies proposed by
Miles and Snow (1978, 2003) the companies
that practice prospective strategies introduce
new products and/or services, develop new
technologies, and seek new markets, among others,
Figure 1. Proposed research model. Source: author’s own elaboration.
said organizations work with little formalization
and decentralized decision making. Analyzing
companies develop business ideas only if there is
a favorable feasibility, their source of innovation
is often imitation. Defender companies attempt
to maintain a known portion of the market and
in order to maintain this position they tend to
formalize tasks and make centralized decisions
(Fiss, 2011).
Due to all of the above, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H3: Organizational characteristics have
innovation.
H4: Organizational characteristics have a
innovation.
H5: Business strategy has a direct and positive
Figure 1 shows the proposed study model
with its corresponding hypotheses.
H1(+)
H2 (+)
H5 (+)
H3 (+)
H4 (+)
Business
strategy
Technical
innovation
Organizational
characteristics
Administrative
innovation
12
ARTÍCULOS ORIGINALES
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
Investigation design
We focus the study on service companies,
which have activity in various subsectors, such
as: tourism, banking, insurance, commerce,
transport, and education among others. Nowak
(2017) states that the size of the companies
knowledge, a study that addresses all sizes could
generate heterogeneous results, therefore this
study included companies with 50 workers or
more; in other words, micro and small companies
were excluded.
In order for the sample to have a similar
context of survey respondents and for the results
of the study to be representative, the collection of
data was carried out in person from professionals
who attended various postgraduate programs in
a prestigious Latin American university; in this
respect, numerous studies have carried out the
collection of data in university centers which can
be found in Pearce (2013), Bravo and Ostos (2017),
and Gefen, Straub and Boudreau (2000). In order
to minimize any bias in the data collection, the
participants were told that there were no correct
of the data would be maintained, emphasis was
placed on the fact that honest answers were
required.
The participants of these postgraduate
programs came from companies of different
sectors, and occupied various management and
executive positions in their organizations; a total of
248 surveys were collected in person, from which
the surveys with blank or incomplete answers
valid surveys. 164 survey respondents occupied
managerial and executive positions, while 39
were executive and management analysts without
personnel reporting to them.
The questionnaire was divided into four
parts, which corresponded to: business strategies,
organizational characteristics, technical
innovation, and administrative innovation. All
follows: (i) business strategy, is the manner of
adaptation of the organization to the behavior
of the environment (Hambrick, 2003; Miles and
Snow, 2003); (ii) technical innovation, is the
implementation of changes in the products and/
or services, and the production processes, which
are directly related to the basic work activity
of the organization (Crossan and Apaydin,
2010; Damanpour, 1996); (iii) administrative
innovation is the implementation of changes in
the organizational structure, human resources,
and administrative processes, which are indirectly
related to the basic work activity of the organization
(Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Damanpour, 1996);
(iv) organizational characteristics, are work
coordination parameters in an organization, such
as formalization, centralization, specialization
(Fredrickson, 1986; Olson et al., 2005).
In order to obtain the information of the
study variables, a questionnaire based on the
measurement scale used by other authors was
designed; the items corresponding to business
strategies were adapted from Blumentritt
and Danis (2006); the items corresponding to
organizational characteristics were adapted
from Olson et al. (2005), the items that comprise
technical innovation and administrative
innovation were adapted from Yamakawa and
Ostos (2013).
In order to examine the validity of the
measurement instrument, we followed the
study model of Olmedo-Cifuentes and Martinez-
León (2014). In order to ensure that the items
correspond to each construct, we used a testing
process that involved evaluating the reliability and
validity results, this was carried out through: (i)
convergent validity, through an exploratory factor
analysis, the items that were grouped in each
validity, through a correlation analysis between
different concepts. The validity of the study
of a structural equation model; the constructs
and then the structural model was estimated to
identify the relationships that existed between
the constructs.
13
ARTÍCULOS
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Results
The software used for the analysis of the
model was the IBM SPSS AMOS version 24. The
constructs of the model were tested in reliability
(CFA). The measurement model includes 12 items
that were grouped into four constructs: business
strategy (BS); organizational characteristics
(OC); technical innovation (TI); administrative
innovation (AI).
an exploratory factor analysis of principal
components, table 1 shows four obtained
Methods and work techniques
Processes to produce products
Work automatized systems
Frequency of job changes
Changes in organizational structure
Changes in the roles of jobs
Company has specialized workers
Enter new products to the market frequently
Make innovations frequently
Promotes technological changes frequently
Variance explained
Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)
Extraction method: Main component analysis.
Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.
The rotation has turned into 5 iterations
TI19
TI18
TI20
AI25
AI24
AI26
OC33
OC34
OC38
BS47
BS46
BS48
0.901
0.882
0.821
-0.010
0.017
0.073
0.084
0.077
0.322
0.137
0.200
0.261
20.95 %
0.887
0.047
-0.026
0.072
0.931
0.887
0.858
-0.055
-0.023
-0.038
0.065
0.015
0.126
20.71 %
0.875
0.172
0.144
0.124
-0.038
0.036
-0.104
0.868
0.850
0.721
0.101
0.211
0.255
20.20 %
0.806
0.155
0.164
0.233
0.043
0.034
0.091
0.193
0.246
0.066
0.923
0.890
0.789
18.29 %
0.901
Items
Items
Components
code TI AI
BS
OC
a
Source: author’s own elaboration.
constructs: TI, is composed of three items of
which the factor loading was: 0.901, 0.882, and
0.821; AI, is composed of three items of which
the factor loading was: 0.931, 0.887, and 0.858;
OC, is composed of three items of which the
factor loading was: 0.868, 0.850, and 0.721; BS,
is composed of three items of which the factor
loading was: 0.923, 0.890, and 0.789. The results
obtained in each item show highly reasonable
and the uni-dimensionality of the four constructs
formed.
Table 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis: Rotated Component Matrix
14
ARTÍCULOS ORIGINALES
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
After the exploratory analysis, we carried out a
results from the model. Table 2 shows the data
of reliability on the scale, both the values of the
Cronbach alpha and of the composite reliability
are above the value of 0.7 recommended by Hair
et al. (2010) for all the constructs. In addition,
the average variance extracted (AVE) results are
shown, of which the data of each construct are
above the minimum accepted value of 0.5 by
Fornell and Larcker (1981).
Table 3 shows the values of the quality
limits recommended by Hair et al. (2010), the X2
ratio was below 3, the RMSA was below 0.08, and
the other indexes: CFI, IFI, and TLI were above 0.9,
commonly accepted.
Technical
innovation
(TI)
Administrative
innovation
(AI)
Organizational
characteristics
(OC)
Business
strategy
(BS)
TI20
TI19
TI18
AI26
AI25
AI24
OC38
OC34
OC33
BS48
BS47
BS36
0.771
0.931
0.857
0.770
0.950
0.802
0.628
0.835
0.840
0.780
0.890
0.940
1
0.089
0.086
1
0.113
0.100
1
0.163
0.158
1
0.080
0.083
13.563
12.985
12.845
12.126
8.751
8.757
14.111
14.624
ItemsConstruct
Standardised
factor loading
Standard
error
(S.E.)
Critical
ratio
(C.R.)
Cronbach’s
alfa
Composite
reliability
Variance
extracted
0.887
0.875
0.806
0.901
0.891
0.881
0.815
0.905
0.732
0.713
0.599
0.761
Source: author’s own elaboration.
Table 2.
15
ARTÍCULOS
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Then, the discriminant validity correlations
were analyzed (table 4). The obtained values are
below 0.8 recommended by Hair et al. (2010),
Table 4. Means, Standart Deviation, and Correlations
between Constructs
CMIN/DF (X2 ratio)
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Normed Fit Index (NFI)
Bollen’s Incremental Fit Index (IFI)
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
Recommended value
Fit index
Observed value
1.694
0.977
0.945
0.977
0.968
0.059
Source: author’s own elaboration.
Source: author’s own elaboration.
Technical innovation
Administrative innovation
Organizational characteristics
Business strategy
TI
AI
OC
BS
3.576
2.816
4.275
3.371
0.910
0.979
0.620
0.923
1.000
0.066
0.372**
0.436**
1.000
-0.063
0.131 1.000
Items
Construct
Mean
1.000
-0.063
0.131
Standard
Correlations
Deviation
TI AI
BS
OC
Table 3. Quality Summary of Model Fit
16
ARTÍCULOS ORIGINALES
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
Table 5. Path Analysis Results
Source: author’s own elaboration.
Model Fit X2: 1.664; CFI:0.977; IFI:0.977, TLI:0.969; RMSA: 0.57
Business strategy
Business strategy
Organizational
characteristics
Organizational
characteristics
Business strategy
Technical
innovation
Administrative
innovation
Technical
innovation
Administrative
innovation
Organizational
characteristics
0.326
0.169
0.310
n.a.
0.339
0.332
0.176
0.228
n.a.
0.470
< 0.01
< 0.05
< 0.05
n.a.
< 0.01
H1
(supported)
H2
(supported)
H3
(supported)
H4
(no supported)
H5
(supported)
Regression
Unstandardized
regression
weight
Standardized
regression weight
P value Hypotheses
Conclusions
Considering that the objective of the study
is to analyze the relationship of the business
strategies and the organizational characteristics
in the types of technical and administrative
types of innovation, whereas organizational
characteristics only have one partial relationship,
technical innovation but not with administrative
relationship with organizational characteristics.
hypotheses are supported and one hypothesis is
not supported. The relationship between business
strategies and technical and administrative
innovations (hypotheses 1 and 2 respectively),
which are explained by the fact that when
companies carrying out the planning of their
the innovation to be carried out, in other words
if they will maintain the same ones?, if they are
going to seek new markets or if they will exploit
the same ones?, if they will change the production
processes or if they will maintain the same ones?;
and (ii) If they will change the organizational
structure or if they will keep it the same?, if they
will change human resource management or if
they will keep it the same? If the company plans
to operate in the market adopting a proactive
position it will encourage a greater intensity
of innovation, whereas if the company plans to
operate adopting a defensive position, it will
as a work pattern.
With regard to organizational characteristics,
technical innovation (hypothesis 3) but not
with administrative innovation (hypothesis 4),
this is explained by the variation of perception
in the work coordination of the organizations,
this means that the managers or executive of
the service companies will attribute greater
importance to the form of coordination of the
works when they develop technical innovations
but not when they develop administrative
innovations. In this respect, Daft (2008) maintains
that in order to implement technical innovations
17
ARTÍCULOS
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
it is best for the organization to adopt an organic
rather than a mechanical structure model; the
innovative ideas to be more easily transferred
from the lower level to the upper level, whereas to
implement administrative innovations it is best for
organizations to adopt a mechanical rather than
an organic structure model, since the mechanical
structure is more rigid, it allows employees to
accept changes more easily.
Business strategies have a positive
organizational characteristics (hypothesis 5), this
organize) in a coherent manner. In this respect,
Fiss (2011) and Miles and Snow (2003) state that
process depends on the type of business strategy
chosen by managers. This proposal is reinforced
by Bozkurt and Kalkan (2014) and Castro
and Higgs (2008) who indicate that business
and the way of managing human resources to
obtain better organizational performances. This
means that if companies plan a business strategy
with a proactive tendency, it is necessary to
formalization, decentralized decisions, and high
specialization. Whereas, if companies plan a
business strategy with a defensive tendency, it is
necessary to maintain rigid work coordination,
with high formalization, centralized decisions,
and low specialization.
The results of the research can help
managers to improve the company’s innovation
management. Although it is true that managers are
assigning great importance to the prior activities
required to carry out technical innovations, it
is observed that the same does not happen with
administrative innovations, it is necessary to
adequately design the work coordination when
administrative innovations are implemented.
Regardless of the above, this work has
limitations. Depending on the authors, there
are different types of strategies, this study only
and Snow; however, the study can be expanded to
the strategic proposals of other authors. The same
occurs with the types of innovation, there are
various types, which can be analyzed in a future
study, for example: innovation of products and
processes.
Another limitation is that one representative
per company was surveyed in the sample, this
means that the answers obtained for each
company depend on a single person, sometimes
survey, which depends on their feeling towards the
company, we have tried to reduce this limitation,
surveying the students of Master’s programs, who
occupied managerial positions and had extensive
work experience.
18
ARTÍCULOS ORIGINALES
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
References
Aragón-Correa, J. (1998). Strategic proactivity
Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 556-567.
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G. and Mol, M. (2008).
Management Innovation. Academy of Management
Review, 33(4), 825-845.
Blumentritt, T. and Danis, W. (2006). Business
strategy types and innovative practices. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 18(2), 274-291.
Borch, O., Huse, M. and Senneseth, K. (1999).
and corporate entrepreneurship an empirical
Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 24(1), 49-70.
Bozkurt, O. and Kalkan, A. (2014). Business
strategies of SME’s innovation types and factors
Ege
, 14(2), 189-198.
Bravo, E. and Ostos, J. (2017). Performance in
computer-mediated work: the moderating role
of level of automation. Cognition Technology and
Work, 19(2-3), 529-541.
Castro, L. and Higgs, M. (2008). How the
alignment of business strategy and HR strategy
can impact performance. Journal of General
Management, 33(4), 13-33.
Crossan, M. and Apaydin, M. (2010). A
multi-dimensional framework of organizational
innovation: a systematic review of the literature.
Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154-1191.
Daft, R. (2008). Organization Theory and
Massachusetts, USA: Cengage Learning.
Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational
complexity and innovation: Developing and
testing multiple contingency models. Management
Science, 42(5), 693-716.
Damanpour, F. and Aravind, D. (2011).
Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes,
and antecedents. Management and Organization
Review, 8(2), 423-454.
Damanpour, F. and Evan, W. (1984).
Organizational Innovation and Performance: The
Problem of “Organizational Lag”. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 29(3), 392-409.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R. and Avellaneda, C.
(2009). Combinative Effects of Innovation Types
and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal
Study of Service Organizations. Journal of
Management Studies, 46, 650-675.
Desarbo, W. et al. (2004). Revisiting the
Miles and Snow strategic framework: Uncovering
interrelationships between strategic types,
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26,
47-74.
Fiss, P. (2011). Building better causal theories:
a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization
research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2),
393-420.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating
structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Fredrickson, J. (1986). The strategic decision
process and organizational structure. Academic of
Management Review, 11(2), 280-297.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudreau, M.-
C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and
regression: Guidelines for research practice.
Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 4, 1-76.
Gunday, G. et al. (2011). Effects of innovation
International Journal
of Production Economics, 133, 662-676.
Hair, J. et al. (2010).
London, United Kingdom: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Hambrick, D. (2003). On the staying power of
defender, analyzers, and prospectors. Academy of
Management Executive, 17(4), 115-118.
Hékis, H. et al. (2013). Evaluation of
typology of Miles and Snow in the hotel sector
19
ARTÍCULOS
Revista Perspectiva Empresarial, Vol. 6, No. 2, julio-diciembre de 2019, 5-19
ISSN 2389-8186, E-ISSN 2389-8194
JHONY OSTOS MARIÑO, ARTURO RODOLFO SAENZ ARTEAGA, KERSTIN BREMSER
Florianópolis - Santa Catarina - Brazil. Revista de
Globalización, Competitividad & Gobernabilidad,
7(2), 26-43.
Jansen, J., Van Den Bosch, F. and Volberda,
H. (2006). Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative
Innovation, and Performance: Effects of
Organizational Antecedents and Environmental
Moderators. Management Science, 52(11),
1661-1674.
Kabanoff, B. and Brown, S. (2008). Knowledge
structures of prospectors, analyzers, and
defenders: content, structure, stability, and
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29,
149-171.
Meeus, M. and Edquist, C. (2006). Introduction
to Part I: Product and process innovation. In Hage,
J. and Meeus, M. (Ed.), Innovation, Science and
(pp.
23-37). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Miles, R. and Snow, C. (1978). Organizational
New York, USA:
McGraw-Hill.
Miles, R. and Snow, C. (2003). Organizational
California, USA:
Stanford Business Classics.
Mintzberg, H. (1993).
New Jersey,
USA: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Nowak, R. (2017). Demystifying absorptive
empowerment. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 21(06), 1-19.
Olmedo-Cifuentes, I. and Martinez-León,
on employee views of corporate reputation.
Business Research
Quarterly, 17, 223-241.
Olson, E., Slater, S. and Hult, T. (2005). The
strategy, marketing organization structure, and
strategic behavior. Journal of Marketing, 69(7),
49-65.
Pearce, J. (2013). Using Social Identity Theory
to Predict Managers’ Emphases on Ethical and
Legal Values in Judging Business Issues. Journal of
Business Ethics, 112, 497-514.
Pittino, D. and Visintin, F. (2009). Innovation
and strategic types of family SMEs: A test and
model. Journal of Enterprise Culture, 17(3),
257-295.
Seaden, G. et al. (2003). Strategic decisions
Construction
Management and Economics, 21(6), 603-612.
Walker, R. (2008). An empirical evaluation
of innovation types and organizational and
environmental characteristics: Towards a
Journal of Public
Administration Research & Theory, 18(4), 591-615.
Walker, R., Damanpour, F. and Devece,
C. (2011). Management Innovation and
Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect
of Performance Management. Journal of Public
Administration Research & Theory, 21, 367-386.
Yamakawa, P. and Ostos, J. (2013). The
Innovation in Service Companies in Peru. Revista
Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 15(49), 582-600.
