Validación de los resultados de la aplicación del método.

The impact of the environment on organisations is well documented. In the context of

institutional theory and social construction, the firm is viewed as operating within the

fabric of an economic context. A fundamental issue in economic theory is the extent to

which organisational development is the product of external forces rooted in their

social and economic systems, or whether it results from the structural or behavioural

characteristics of the firm.

This chapter firstly examines the origins of, and developments in SI as a theoretical

framework and its utility as a tool for understanding and analysing environmental fit

over time. As industries differ in their needs, SSI are afforded particular consideration

given that firms-in-sector are regarded as homogenous. Thereafter, the literature on

firm age is introduced with respect to implications for system fit and innovative

capacity. The literature on strategic aspiration in small firms is then discussed. While

there is a substantial and growing body of literature in relation to the systems, firm age

and strategy domains, extant research is scant on the interrelationships between

them. The conclusion draws each of the elements together, underlining the gaps in the

literature and prompting the research question as to how micro processes may enable

or constrain system fit, and in turn, innovative potential.

The 1980s witnessed the emergence of a body of literature aimed at the study of

national policy and development issues. Since the inception of National Systems of

Innovation (NSI) (Freeman, 1987, 1992, Lundvall, 1992, Nelson, 1993; Nelson and

Rosenberg, 1993), the concept has been adopted by policy makers and academics in

25 | P a g e

competitiveness. At its broadest, the systems of innovation (SI) concept presents ‘a

way of describing and analysing the set of institutions that generate and mould

economic growth, to the extent that there is a theory of growth in which technological

innovation is the key driving force’ (Nelson, 2000, p.11).

While a common infrastructure sets the context for innovation in an economy, it is

ultimately firms, influenced by their microeconomic environments, which develop and

commercialise innovations (Furman et al., 2002). Lundvall (2010) describes the firm as

the ‘central motor’ (p.340) in the SI. In recognition of this, the original NSI concept has

been adapted to reflect regional, technological and sectoral specificities however, little

is known about how the framework adapts to support individual firms as they mature

and adjust their strategies.

SI have emerged as an important academic and policymaking tool designed to help

understand the structure and performance of systems and processes supporting macro

innovation (Soete, Verspagen and ter Weel, 2010) and ultimately enabling firm-level

innovation. As a collective construct, they present a multidimensional, integrated view

of innovation by comparison with the traditional market failure based perspective.

In the context that technology represents the theoretical and practical knowledge,

skills and artefacts used to develop products and services as well as playing a role in

their production and delivery (Burgelman, Christensen and Wheelright, 2008), the

integrative capacity of the SI concept, encompassing the fundamental shift from

natural to human resource endowment (Wicken, 2009) and the inclusion of market

and non-market institutions, highlights the concept’s analytical potential compared to

26 | P a g e

Framework and the Triple-Helix model (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). Porter

presents national systems as host environments to single industries competing in an

international context rather than a system in its own right (Lundvall, 2010) whereas

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000), consistent with the knowledge-based society – the

basic premise of the triple helix model, give primacy to university-industry-government

relations in keeping with the science-driven innovation paradigm.

Drawing on the SI, firm age and strategy literature this research proposes a distinctive

analytical approach to assessing system-fit. Analysing the effect that the environment

has on organisations, and the counter effect that organisations have on their social

environments, Stinchcombe (1965) interprets ‘social structure’ as any variables that

are stable characteristics of the society outside the organisation (p.142).

Companies give simultaneous consideration to strategy, markets, products and

technologies and how these interact over the firm lifecycle, yet despite the thorough

exploration of SI over the last quarter century, the concept has proved difficult to

operationalise at the micro level owing to the resources required (Robertson & Smith,

2008). While numerous studies have addressed system-level support, none has

adopted a micro perspective with a view to testing whether firm-specific contingencies

are more or less conducive to performance through a more differentiated perspective

on system-fit (Carlsson and Jacobsson , 1997; Donaldson, 1996).

Emphasising the systemic, embedded character of the process, Van de Ven (1986)

defines innovation as ‘the development and implementation of new ideas by people

who over time engage in transactions with others within an institutional order’ (p.590).

27 | P a g e

whereby structure is embedded in practice and both are recursively connected with

actors exercising agency by making a difference to the systems in which they are

embedded (Giddens, 1984). Structuration is an appropriate lens as it embraces the

connection between structure and the practice of constituent firms characterised by

reciprocity and feedback mechanisms. While the SI literature is not formally situated in

the context of structure and agency, Giddens’ views on the reflexive role of individuals

and social structures suggests parallels with the SI framework which recognises

processes of change through the co-evolution of dimensions such as skills, funding,

innovation types, co-operation and intellectual property protection.Critical to that is

the recursive process of organisations building or acquiring the resources and

competencies needed to deliver innovation in conjunction with supporting institutions.

With respect to the effect of contingency on system fit, Lundvall (2007) suggests ‘an

inherent risk that the system embeds a structuralist mode of explanation that neglects

the critical role of agency’ (p.110) - a core aspect of this research.

Firm contingencies

Taking the view that organisations and institutions are distinct, there is a need to look

at organisation-specific factors. The proposition that organisational structure and

process must fit its context to survive and prosper (Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985) is

apposite. In the management literature, contingency theory suggests that appropriate

organisational structures and styles are dependent on a set of ‘contingency factors’,

usually related to the environment (Tosi & Slocum, 1984, p.9) and further, no single

organisational configuration is effective in all circumstances (Tidd & Hull, 2006). Indeed

organisations are not best fitted to their environments in any absolute sense, but

28 | P a g e

combination of accumulated and selectively retained variations (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006;

Donaldson, 1996). Donaldson (1996) argues in favour of organisational optimality vis-a-

vis contingencies such as size, age, strategy and technology. This recognises the

importance of micro-level factors and their potential implications but despite its

relevance for managers and policy-makers, this area remains relatively unexplored by

management researchers. This study addresses the gap by exploring how firm specific

factors influence system-fit in the software and manufacturing engineering sectors,

employing SSI as a lens. Three key factors are explored:

 Firm-system fit based on associations with organisational age

 Firm-system fit based on associations with strategic aspiration

 Firm-system fit based on associations with sectoral classification

Similar to the bivariate interaction construct put forward by Drazin and Van de Ven

(1985, p.515), this study measures fit as ‘the interaction of pairs of organisational

context-structure (system) factors which affect performance’, otherwise viewed as

system enablement.

Structural and Behavioural Contingency

Organisation-environment models and strategy-policy frameworks differ markedly in

how contingencies are modelled, and in the role that organisations play in the process

(Rumelt , 1979). Carroll and Hannan (2000) posit two classes of environmental change:

‘Exogenous processes (environmental conditions) which shape and change

organisations, but are not directly systematically affected by firms; and

endogenous processes (population dynamics), in which the environment

29 | P a g e

The former is consistent with the SI literature as currently constituted whereas the

latter is in keeping with the thrust of the current research.

Effect of firm maturity

The SI framework has evolved to meet the needs of distinct countries, regions, sectors

and technologies through sub and supranational systems. With specific regard to

technological systems, these are often matched by policies that support ‘embryo,

infant and adolescent technologies’ (Carlsson and Jacobsson, 1997, p.285) however

this diversity is not reflected at the firm level. Firms transition from novice to expert

decisions through time and experience (Bingham and Eisenhardt, 2011) learning

through failure and success. Just as the methods and assets required to manage

engineering enterprises are distinct from those for software companies, the resources

needed to create a founding team, develop a first product or cultivate a business

model are different from those required to servitise an existing product, license

technology or diversify a portfolio. The literature to date, while recognising the need

for differentiated systems, has failed to capture the relationship between SSI

dimensions, life-course (Aldrich, 1999; Boswell, 1973) and strategic aspiration (Roper,

1998; Storey, 2004). This study addresses this gap by testing bivariate interactions

between firm age, strategy and SSI components.

In document Método de evaluación del impacto local de la transferencia de tecnologías de contrucción y rehabilitación de viviendas con ecomateriales a escala municipal (página 88-93)