Resultados en el procesamiento digital de señales

The impact of industry type on several relationships of interest has been studied in meta-analyses conducted in strategic management and marketing (e.g., see Grinstein, 2008b; Kirca et al., 2005; Krasnikov & Jayachandran, 2008; Vincent et al., 2004). Industry type is often categorised as manufacturing and services depending upon the nature of market offering,

either products or services, respectively. Products and services have been

highlighted in the literature to exhibit significant differences that are theorised by researchers (e.g., Damanpour, 1991; Zeithaml, Bitner & Gremler, 2006) to stem from several factors such as:

1) the core essence (intangibility versus tangibility) (Zeithaml et al., 2006), 2) greater variation and unpredictability in service production and delivery, as

opposed to greater standardisation in manufacturing (Daft, 1983), 3) the nature of production and delivery processes (Zeithaml et al., 2006),

Page | 67

4) the proximity and intensive interaction between service providers and customers, unlike manufacturing (Mills & Margulies, 1980).

Damanpour (1991) opines that given the differences in the essence of services versus products, the antecedents of innovation and their relative significance would vary considerably between manufacturing and service industries. Some scholars maintain that differences between industry types often translate into greater opportunities for service firms to innovate, as many services are highly customised to suit customer demands (e.g., Cadogan, Sanna, Risto & Kaisu, 2002).

The empirical evidence about the influence of industry type on innovation and its association with firm performance is mixed and sometimes contradictory. For example, Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle (2011) report a stronger innovation–performance relationship for manufacturing versus service firms in

their study. On the other hand, Vincent et al.(2004), in their meta-analysis on

the antecedents and consequences of innovation, report statistically non- significant differences between the effect sizes obtained from service versus manufacturing industries. The divergent results suggest that further investigation of the moderation effect of industry type is essential. In keeping with the discussion presented so far, a sub-group analysis of industry type as a potential moderator is undertaken in this study and it is hypothesised that:

Hypothesis-2 (H2): The relationship between PIC and firm performance is moderated by industry type.

3.5.2. Firm size

As discussed earlier (in Section-3.3.2.), the influence of firm size on various organisational variables has received a high level of research attention. In particular, the impact of firm size on innovation (and related constructs such as R&D capability) has been a subject of intense debate amongst innovation scholars (Rubera & Kirca, 2012), and firm size is also frequently posited to affect firm performance (Garg et al., 2003).

Page | 68

Schumpeter (1934; 1950) contends that large firms (as opposed to small firms) are the principal contributors of innovation. This contention, sometimes referred to as the Schumpeterian Hypothesis, has spurred substantial scholarly interest, but the research findings have often been conflicting (Acs & Audretsch, 1987; Cohen & Klepper, 1996). For example, studies have reported a positive (e.g., Aiken & Hage, 1971; Damanpour, 1992; Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Kimberly & Evanisko, 1981; Thornhill, 2006), statistically non- significant (e.g., Jervis, 1975), and sometimes even a negative association (e.g., Utterback, 1974) between firm size and innovation.

The literature is thus divided with regard to whether large firms or SMEs are more innovative, and whether size influences the ability of firms to secure performance benefits arising from innovative products. Researchers argue that the possession of specialised resources (such as knowledge) and capabilities are imperative for the creation of innovative products, and for securing consequent performance benefits (e.g., Hage & Aiken, 1970; Howell, Shea & Higgins, 2005; Schumpeter, 1934; Tsai, 2001). Large firms are more likely to be endowed with certain unique resources and capabilities such as the capacity to invest in and influence distribution channels (Mitchell, 1989), and the availability of skilled personnel for a timely and successful launch of new products. Large firms can also commit greater resource outlays for innovative activities such as finances and skilled human resources that may foster PIC and yield revenue-generating product innovations (see Rubera & Kirca, 2012). It is widely acknowledged in the literature that large firms benefit from economies of scale, that facilitate reduction in the cost of operations (Gaba, Pan & Ungson, 2002). Additionally, innovative products from large firms are perceived to carry reduced purchase risk by prospective consumers as a consequence of their (often) superior reputation and longevity (Chandy & Tellis, 2000). The reduced risk perception of purchasing innovative products from large firms potentially facilitates the trial and acceptance of new products in targeted market segments.

Furthermore, dynamic capabilities are posited by several proponents to be idiosyncratic (e.g., Makadok, 2001; Teece et al., 1997), and large firms are

Page | 69

said to possess greater idiosyncrasies and complexities in their processes (Krasnikov & Jayachandran, 2008). Idiosyncrasies reflect uniqueness in organisational systems, routines and processes that potentially make them highly inimitable by competing firms. This suggests that PIC and the association between PIC and firm performance could be stronger for large firms.

On the other hand, SMEs are said to be more agile and flexible (e.g., Damanpour, 1996; Rogers, 2004; Verhees & Meulenberg, 2004). Such characteristics enable many SMEs to yield successful innovations despite resource constraints (Rosenbusch et al., 2011; Thornhill, 2006). On the other hand, large firms are likely to develop inertia that may impede their ability to respond to changing conditions (Boeker, 1997). Due to the posited greater responsiveness of SMEs, they may benefit from innovations that cater to specific market niches for a protracted duration, versus their larger counterparts (Rosenbusch et al., 2011). These characteristics of SMEs are expected to enhance PIC levels and strengthen the PIC–firm performance relationship. However, Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle (2011) have empirically deduced a stronger association between innovation and performance for large firms, rather than for SMEs. Furthermore, in assessing moderation effects of firm size, Rubera and Kirca (2012), in their meta- analysis, reported mixed findings with regards to the association of innovativeness with different performance metrics, for large firms and SMEs. Based on the preceding discussion, it is argued that empirical findings concerning firm size as a moderator of the relationship between innovation constructs (such as PIC) and firm performance are inconsistent. This necessitates further examination of the moderation effects of firm size. It is expected that an investigation of the moderation effect by firm size, on the PIC–firm performance relationship, will yield novel insights and enable a

better understanding of the relationship.

For examining potential moderation by firm size, the variable will be dichotomised as either large firms or SMEs, as mostly followed in the

Page | 70

firms versus SMEs) enables a sub-group analysis of firm size on the focal relationship. Therefore, a testable moderation hypothesis is presented as:

Hypothesis-3 (H3): The PIC–firm performance relationship is moderated by

firm size.

It should be noted that the deployment of firm size as a proxy for resource

inputs is entirely extraneous to the firm size‘s treatment as a potential

moderator. In the former, the firm size acts as a ‗substitute‘ for lack of data on resource inputs, which is required for the weighting scheme, whereas in the latter case, it is modelled as a moderator influencing the relationship under investigation. The two cases are independent of each other and there is no possibility of any ‗cross-effects‘.