国际商业与组织创新:未来研究议程

IF 2.2 4区 管理学 Q3 BUSINESS Multinational Business Review Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1108/mbr-11-2023-0182
Jill Juergensen, Rajneesh Narula, Irina Surdu
{"title":"国际商业与组织创新:未来研究议程","authors":"Jill Juergensen, Rajneesh Narula, Irina Surdu","doi":"10.1108/mbr-11-2023-0182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Organizational innovation (OI) is important for multinational enterprises to adapt to changes in their broader technological and market environments. Despite its power to transform organizations, OI has remained at the periphery of international business (IB) scholarship. The purpose of this paper is that IB is particularly equipped to further the understanding of OI. IB studies place significant value on “context” and how the context in which the firm operates can enable or hinder the evolution of internal routines and practices, leading (or not) to OI.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The authors identify the key challenges which have contributed to the seemingly less important role of OI in IB, notable among them being the ambiguity of concepts associated with OI across different research fields. The authors advance the research agenda by offering a comprehensive definition of OI. The authors then put forward an integrative framework where the authors discuss the importance, and contribution, of IB to OI and vice versa.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The literature is characterized by terminological and empirical ambiguity. Some management scholars have coined the term “management innovation” with a clear element of invention and state-of-the-art attached to it. Others have referred to “organizational innovation,” when exploring incremental and targeted changes to extant team- and firm-level practices. In turn, IB scholars developed their own terminology, often (implicitly) referring to technological innovations as “asset-type firm-specific advantages” (FSAs) and associating OI with “transaction-type” FSAs.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The authors offer a new definition for OI – to address the challenges associated with terminological ambiguity. The authors put forward an integrative framework of OI in IB. The proposed framework of OI emphasizes the wider organizational context in which OI takes place, i.e. firm heterogeneity; and the broader external (IB) context of OI.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":46630,"journal":{"name":"Multinational Business Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International business and organizational innovation: an agenda for future research\",\"authors\":\"Jill Juergensen, Rajneesh Narula, Irina Surdu\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/mbr-11-2023-0182\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>Organizational innovation (OI) is important for multinational enterprises to adapt to changes in their broader technological and market environments. Despite its power to transform organizations, OI has remained at the periphery of international business (IB) scholarship. The purpose of this paper is that IB is particularly equipped to further the understanding of OI. IB studies place significant value on “context” and how the context in which the firm operates can enable or hinder the evolution of internal routines and practices, leading (or not) to OI.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>The authors identify the key challenges which have contributed to the seemingly less important role of OI in IB, notable among them being the ambiguity of concepts associated with OI across different research fields. The authors advance the research agenda by offering a comprehensive definition of OI. The authors then put forward an integrative framework where the authors discuss the importance, and contribution, of IB to OI and vice versa.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>The literature is characterized by terminological and empirical ambiguity. Some management scholars have coined the term “management innovation” with a clear element of invention and state-of-the-art attached to it. Others have referred to “organizational innovation,” when exploring incremental and targeted changes to extant team- and firm-level practices. In turn, IB scholars developed their own terminology, often (implicitly) referring to technological innovations as “asset-type firm-specific advantages” (FSAs) and associating OI with “transaction-type” FSAs.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>The authors offer a new definition for OI – to address the challenges associated with terminological ambiguity. The authors put forward an integrative framework of OI in IB. The proposed framework of OI emphasizes the wider organizational context in which OI takes place, i.e. firm heterogeneity; and the broader external (IB) context of OI.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":46630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Multinational Business Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Multinational Business Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/mbr-11-2023-0182\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multinational Business Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mbr-11-2023-0182","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的组织创新(OI)对于跨国企业适应更广泛的技术和市场环境变化非常重要。尽管组织创新具有变革组织的力量,但它一直处于国际商务(IB)学术研究的边缘。本文的目的在于,国际商学院尤其具备进一步了解开放式创新的条件。国际商务研究非常重视 "背景",以及企业运营的背景如何促进或阻碍内部常规和实践的演变,从而导致(或不导致)开放式创新。作者指出了导致开放式创新在国际商务中的作用似乎不太重要的主要挑战,其中值得注意的是不同研究领域中与开放式创新相关的概念模糊不清。作者提出了开放式学习的全面定义,从而推进了研究议程。然后,作者提出了一个综合框架,讨论了国际企业对开放式商业智能的重要性和贡献,反之亦然。一些管理学者创造了 "管理创新 "这一术语,其中明显带有发明和最新的元素。其他学者在探讨对现有团队和公司层面的实践进行渐进式和有针对性的变革时,则称之为 "组织创新"。反过来,国际企业学者也发展了自己的术语,经常(含蓄地)将技术创新称为 "资产型企业特定优势"(FSAs),而将开放式创新与 "交易型 "FSAs联系起来。作者提出了国际商业银行中的开放式投资综合框架。所提出的开放式商业智能框架强调了开放式商业智能所处的更广泛的组织环境,即公司的异质性;以及开放式商业智能所处的更广泛的外部(国际商业银行)环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
International business and organizational innovation: an agenda for future research

Purpose

Organizational innovation (OI) is important for multinational enterprises to adapt to changes in their broader technological and market environments. Despite its power to transform organizations, OI has remained at the periphery of international business (IB) scholarship. The purpose of this paper is that IB is particularly equipped to further the understanding of OI. IB studies place significant value on “context” and how the context in which the firm operates can enable or hinder the evolution of internal routines and practices, leading (or not) to OI.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors identify the key challenges which have contributed to the seemingly less important role of OI in IB, notable among them being the ambiguity of concepts associated with OI across different research fields. The authors advance the research agenda by offering a comprehensive definition of OI. The authors then put forward an integrative framework where the authors discuss the importance, and contribution, of IB to OI and vice versa.

Findings

The literature is characterized by terminological and empirical ambiguity. Some management scholars have coined the term “management innovation” with a clear element of invention and state-of-the-art attached to it. Others have referred to “organizational innovation,” when exploring incremental and targeted changes to extant team- and firm-level practices. In turn, IB scholars developed their own terminology, often (implicitly) referring to technological innovations as “asset-type firm-specific advantages” (FSAs) and associating OI with “transaction-type” FSAs.

Originality/value

The authors offer a new definition for OI – to address the challenges associated with terminological ambiguity. The authors put forward an integrative framework of OI in IB. The proposed framework of OI emphasizes the wider organizational context in which OI takes place, i.e. firm heterogeneity; and the broader external (IB) context of OI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.80%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Multinational Business Review publishes high quality and innovative peer-review research on the strategy, organization and performance of multinational enterprise (MNE), international business history, geography of international business, and the impact of international business on economic growth and development. The journal encourages papers that are cross-disciplinary in nature, and that address new and important issues in international business. Multinational Business Review also promotes research on under-represented regions such as Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and South East Asia and their MNEs, as well as under-studied topics such as the role of trade, investment and other public policies. Specific topics of interest include innovation and entrepreneurship in an international context; corporate governance and ownership; social, environmental and political risk; the role of multilateral institutions; and the nature of emerging market multinationals. The title seeks strong conceptual studies, contributing to the advancement of theories and frameworks, and sound empirical work, whether qualitative or quantitative, suggesting managerial, economic or government policy recommendations. The journal encourages replication studies that contribute to our understanding of the reliability and validity of current knowledge. Finally, Multinational Business Review welcomes proposals for perspectives pieces that offer critical and challenging viewpoints; surveys of the literature particularly those that use new and innovative bibliometric methods; and special issues on topics of relevance to Multinational Business Review.
期刊最新文献
Open strategy and the multinational firm Improving the credibility of case study research in international business studies and beyond: a simple fix for a serious problem Towards environmental impact of inward foreign direct investment: the moderating role of varieties of democracy Ownership share in cross-border acquisitions: does high-tech status of the target matter? Future directions of R&D internationalization in international business
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1