The Impact of Innovation Capability On The Performance of Manufacturing Companies - The Greek Case

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
The impact of innovation capability on the performance of manufacturing

companies: The Greek case
Dimitrios Kafetzopoulos Evangelos Psomas
Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Dimitrios Kafetzopoulos Evangelos Psomas , (2015),"The impact of innovation capability on the
performance of manufacturing companies", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol.
26 Iss 1 pp. 104 - 130
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2012-0117
Downloaded on: 23 March 2015, At: 16:14 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 113 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 173 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Xiangmeng Huang, Boon Leing Tan, Xiaoming Ding, (2015),"An exploratory survey of green supply
chain management in Chinese manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises: Pressures
and drivers", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. 80-103 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-2012-0053
Avinash Panwar, Rakesh Jain, A.P.S. Rathore, (2015),"Lean implementation in Indian process
industries some empirical evidence", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 Iss
1 pp. 131-160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-2013-0049
Minna Saunila, Sanna Pekkola, Juhani Ukko, (2014),"The relationship between innovation capability
and performance: The moderating effect of measurement", International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 63 Iss 2 pp. 234-249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2013-0065
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 601714 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of

download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
JMTM
26,1
The impact of innovation

capability on the performance
of manufacturing companies
104
Received 6 December 2012

Revised 1 June 2013
31 August 2013
4 October 2013
Accepted 7 October 2013
The Greek case

Dimitrios Kafetzopoulos and Evangelos Psomas
Department of Business Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises,
University of Patras, Agrinio, Greece
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide additional evidence of the impact of innovation
on three dimensions of a firms performance, namely product quality, operational performance and
financial performance.
Design/methodology/approach The analysis includes an initial exploratory factor analysis,
followed by confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling, in order to investigate the
relations between the constructs of the proposed model. A sample of 233 Greek manufacturing firms is
used for this purpose.
Findings According to the study findings, innovation capability directly contributes to product
quality and operational performance. Although it has no direct impact on manufacturing firms
financial performance, it has an indirect impact through the moderator of operational performance.
Thus, innovation is an opportunity for a manufacturing firm to improve its performance.
Research limitations/implications The sample of the responding manufacturing companies is
limited to small and medium-sized enterprises from one country (Greece). In addition, manufacturing
firms from different sectors have different resources, capabilities and performance.
Practical implications The study offers clear implications for managers who should put additional
emphasis on innovation as it is an important element for achieving improved overall firm performance
and sustainable competitive power.
Originality/value Based on the multi-dimensional structure of innovation, this empirical study
determines the contribution of innovation capability to specific performance dimensions of
manufacturing companies.
Keywords Innovation, Manufacturing industries, Product quality, Financial performance,
Operational performance
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
Vol. 26 No. 1, 2015
pp. 104-130
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/JMTM-12-2012-0117
1. Introduction
Innovation is a broad and multi-dimensional concept that refers to all scientific,
technological, organizational, financial and commercial activities which lead to, or are
intended to lead to, the implementation of technologically new or improved products or
services (OECD, 1997). Innovation has become a key issue at various levels for firms,
institutions and governments and its importance has motivated researchers to identify
its various driving forces (Becheikh et al., 2006). The link between innovation and
firm performance is well established in the previous research. Indeed, there is a wealth
of evidence in the academic literature indicating a positive relationship between
innovation and firm performance in the manufacturing industry (Loof et al., 2002;
Cheng et al., 2010). However, some researches indicate a negative link or no link
at all (Capon et al., 1990; Chandler and Hanks, 1994; Subramanian and Nilakanta,
1996). There are limited analytical and empirical studies which examine the direct
relationship between the innovation dimensions and various aspects of a firms

performance ( Jin et al., 2004; Gunday et al., 2011; Hashi and Stojcic, 2010). It is apparent
that much more conceptual and empirical work will be needed to examine the impact of
overall innovation capability on firm performance dimensions (Loof et al., 2002;
Sadikoglu and Zehir, 2010). Therefore, many authors (Evangelista and Vezzani, 2010;
Gunday et al., 2011; Li et al., 2012) suggest future research in order to validate previous
research findings.
The present study contributes to the above mentioned literature gap, since its
objective is to develop the concept of the innovation capability of a firm as the level to
which four innovation dimensions (product, process, marketing and organizational
innovation) are implemented. The component factors and the key measured variables
for the construct innovation capability are identified through an extensive literature
review, while the validity and reliability of the above construct is assessed. The
objective of this study is to provide additional evidence of the impact of the overall
innovation capability of a firm on the three dimensions of firm performance,
namely product quality, operational performance and financial performance. Based on
the examination of the above relationships, a conceptual framework is formulated,
providing insights into the dilemma described in the existing literature.
The analysis procedure adopted in this study includes an initial exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) to uncover the underlying structure of variables. Then, confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was used to refine the resulting scales in EFA and to determine
whether the number of factors and the related loadings of the measured variables
(i.e. indicators) conform to what is expected on the basis of pre-established theory. The
structural equation modelling (SEM) technique is used to investigate the relations
between the innovation capability and product quality, operational performance
and financial performance of 233 Greek manufacturing companies. The contribution
of innovation capability to key dimensions of firm performance is clearer and more
comprehensible to managers through the analysis of the present empirical data.
The paper proceeds as follows: in Section 2, we describe the key dimensions of
innovation introducing the innovation capability concept, and the three dimensions
of firm performance. We also develop our hypotheses about the effects of innovation
capability on firms product quality, operational and financial performance. Section 3
describes the research methodology, followed by the data analysis and the respective
results. In the next part, findings related to validity, reliability and testing of the
structural model are discussed. Finally, conclusions, managerial implications and future
research proposals are presented.
2. Theoretical background and conceptual foundation
2.1 Innovation capability
Innovation capability is the degree of firm innovativeness (Calantone et al., 2002)
whilst being a multidimensional concept (Wonglimpiyarat, 2010; Forsman, 2011).
Looking at the earlier studies, the question that arises is: what dimensions of
innovation should be explored to clearly establish an association between overall
innovation and firm performance?
Literature distinguishes different types of innovation and researchers have explored
its classification in different ways ( Jimnez-Jimnez and Sanz-Valle, 2011; Kim et al.,
2012). Some studies examined a single type of innovation such as process innovation
(Abrunhosa and Moura E S, 2008) or product innovation (Prajogo and Sohal, 2004),
whereas others explored both process and product innovation (Feng et al., 2008;
Impact of
innovation
capability
105
JMTM
26,1
106
Martinez-Costa and Martinez-Lorente, 2008). Many studies conceptualize innovation

related to marketing and organizational innovation (Wang and Ahmed, 2004;
Evangelista and Vezzani, 2010; Wonglimpiyarat, 2010; Gunday et al., 2011; Chang et al.,
2012). Avermaete et al. (2003) claimed that product, process, organizational and market
innovation were all domains of innovation. Damanpour (1991) distinguishes technical
and administrative innovation. Technical innovation includes new products or services
and processes that are new to the organization, or changes in the way products are
made or delivered (Avermaete et al., 2003). Administrative innovation refers to the
application of new ideas to improve organizational structures, systems and processes
pertaining to the social structure of an organization (Damanpour, 1991; Weerawardena,
2003). It includes the organizational and marketing dimensions as they deal with the
changes in the organizational structures (Avermaete et al., 2003; Jimnez-Jimnez and
Sanz-Valle, 2011). In the OECD (2005), which is the primary international basis of
guidelines for defining and assessing innovation activities, four different innovation types
are introduced. These are product, process, marketing and organizational innovation.
Since the purpose of the present study is to analyze how innovation activity as a
whole influences the performance of a firm, it adopts a broad concept of innovation
dimensions. In line with the suggested innovation types of Avermaete et al. (2003),
Gunday et al. (2011) and the OECD (2005), we adopt and study the four types of
innovation (product, process, marketing and organizational innovation) that determine
an organizations overall innovativeness. It is hoped that this primary classification
typology will lead to consistency between studies and an increased ability to generalize
from a given study of innovation. Therefore, we believe that using the product/process/
marketing/organizational typology will provide our analysis with a consistent means
of classifying innovation dimensions.
Product innovation. Product innovation is associated with either the creation of new
markets or the enhancement of existing products (Chang et al., 2012). It is a difficult
process driven by advancing technologies, changing customer needs, shortening
product life cycles and increasing global competition (Gunday et al., 2011). Product
innovation is a continuous and cross-functional process involving and integrating a
growing number of different competencies inside and outside the organizational
boundaries. However, product innovation is a risky and expensive endeavour, which
results in low success rates and many projects being terminated midway in the
development cycle (Cormican and OSullivan, 2004). The product innovation
dimension is measured through measured variables that have been used in the studies
of Nassimbeni (2001), Wonglimpiyarat (2010), Tomlinson (2010) and Jimnez-Jimnez
and Sanz-Valle (2011).
Process innovation. According to the OECD (2005), a process innovation is the
implementation of a new or significantly improved production or delivery method. This
includes significant changes in techniques, equipment and/or software. Process
innovations can be intended to decrease unit costs of production or delivery, to increase
quality, or to produce or deliver new or significantly improved products. The
innovation process refers to the transformation process in an innovation trajectory.
Thus, process innovation emphasizes either the re-innovation/reinvention (Rothwell
and Gardiner, 1998) or improvement of an existing process through reducing costs
and/or increasing the flexibility and performance of the process (OECD, 2005). In most
studies, process innovation is associated with the sequences and nature of the
production process that improve the productivity and the efficiency of production
activities (Garcia and Calantone, 2002; De Propris, 2002). It aims to introduce a new element
in production materials, machinery, equipment, processes, task specifications and
workflow mechanisms (Damanpour, 1991). The process innovation dimension is
measured through indicators that have been drawn from the studies of Nassimbeni (2001),
Wonglimpiyarat (2010), Tomlinson (2010) and Jimnez-Jimnez and Sanz-Valle (2011).
Marketing innovation. A marketing innovation is the implementation of a new
marketing method involving significant changes in product design or packaging,
product placement, product promotion or pricing (OECD, 2005). Marketing innovation
is the firms ability to publicize and sell the products on the basis of understanding
consumer needs, the state of the competition, costs and benefits and the acceptance of
the innovation (Yam et al., 2011). Marketing innovations are aimed at better addressing
customer needs, opening up new markets or newly positioning a firms product on the
market with the intention of increasing firm sales (Gunday et al., 2011). The marketing
innovation dimension is measured through indicators that have been drawn from the
studies of Yam et al. (2004) and Yam et al. (2011).
Organizational innovation. The OECD (2005) defines organizational innovation as
the implementation of a new organizational method in the firms business practices,
workplace organization or external relations. Organizational innovations have a
tendency to increase firm performance by reducing administrative and transaction
costs, improving workplace satisfaction (and thus labour productivity), gaining access
to non-tradable assets (such as non-codified external knowledge) or reducing the cost of
supplies. Organizational innovation involves changes to administrative processes and/
or organizational structures relating to the basic work activities of an organization and
its management. Changes in organizational structures and procedures can facilitate the
creation of new products and processes (Chang et al., 2012). The organizational
innovation dimension is measured through indicators that have been drawn from the
studies of Yam et al. (2004, 2011), Gunday et al. (2011) and Forsman (2011).
2.2 Firm performance
Firm performance is considered to be a multidimensional construct (Naser et al., 2004)
and is the measurement of a firms success and achievements (Yeung et al., 2003). A
restrictive set of financial performance measures may adversely impact on an
organizations long-term viability, so organizations should develop a broad range of
performance measures (OMara et al., 1998). Garvin (1987), Lee et al. (2001) and Sousa
and Voss (2002) deem product quality, coupled with operating and financial
performance of the companies, to be their performance dimensions. Furthermore,
Lakhal et al. (2006), following a literature review on strategic management, marketing
and operations management, have chosen three performance related dimensions:
financial performance, operational performance and product quality. Consistent with
prior research, the present study relies on multiple measures of performance to attain
robustness of results. So, three performance related dimensions have been chosen:
product quality, operational performance and financial performance.
Product quality. Product quality is a complex, multidimensional factor for which a
global and uni-dimensional definition does not exist (Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2002).
Product quality refers to a products intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes (Luning
et al., 2002). It has a vast number of meanings and encompasses parameters such as
functional characteristics, physical properties and consumer protection from fraud. It is
the degree to which it satisfies customer requirements (Gill, 2009). In this study, the five
Impact of
innovation
capability
107
JMTM
26,1
108
items of Garvins quality dimensions (performance, reliability, durability, perceived

quality and conformance to specifications) are used for measuring product quality.
Operational performance. Operational performance is usually measured as a composite
of several performance dimensions (Ketokivi and Schroeder, 2004) and reflects the
performance of the internal operation of a company in terms of product/process quality,
efficiency and productivity (Naser et al., 2004). In this study, the operational performance
factor is measured through productivity, efficiency and effectiveness of the companys
operations, while the measurement items used are drawn from well-established
instruments used in previous studies such as those of Lakhal et al. (2006), Feng et al. (2008),
Lin and Jang (2008), Su et al. (2008) and Uyar (2009).
Financial performance. Financial performance is defined as the achievement of
financial and market share objectives (Lin and Jang, 2008). Indicators of business
performance such as company sales growth, profitability, net profit margin, financial
results and cash flow, are used in the present study. These indicators are drawn from
the studies of Lee et al. (2001), Conca et al. (2004), Lakhal et al. (2006), Feng et al. (2008),
Singh (2008) and Han et al. (2009).
2.3 Development of hypotheses
Innovation is critical to a firm obtaining a dominant position and achieving higher
profits (Cheng et al., 2010). It has a considerable impact on corporate performance by
producing an improved market position that conveys competitive advantage and
superior performance (Walker, 2004). Firms which are more innovative place more
emphasis on management techniques (Baldwin and Johnson, 1996) and reach
sustainable levels of higher performance (Hult et al., 2004; Guan and Ma, 2003). A large
number of past empirical studies have confirmed that there is a positive relationship
between innovation and company performance. For example, Avanitis and Hollerstein
(2002) conclude that the degree of innovativeness significantly increases the
productivity of knowledge capital. Favre et al. (2000) conclude that innovations have
a positive impact on firm profits. Diederen et al. (2002) report that innovative firms
show significantly higher profits and growth figures than firms that are not innovative.
McAdam and Keogh (2004) investigated the relationship between firms performance
and their familiarity with innovation and research. They found out that a firms
inclination to make innovations was of vital importance in the competitive environment
in order for it to obtain a higher competitive advantage. Recently, Cheng et al. (2010)
have supported the view that innovation is critical to a firm obtaining a dominant
position and achieving higher profits. Innovation provides organizations with a new
method of conducting business ahead of the competition and the potential to gain a
competitive edge in the marketplace (Ahuja, 2000). Therefore firms that are successful
at innovation will rate their performance higher than firms that have failed at
innovation (Markham and Griffin, 1998; Bougrain and Haudeville, 2002).
Empirical evidence supports the view that product innovation and process
innovation have a positive effect on a firms performance. These two innovation
dimensions can be advantageous to a firm in improving its competitive position
relative to its rivals, as well as its profitability in the market (Cheng et al., 2010). Product
innovations are expected to provide firms with a competitive advantage via the
technological novelty and improved performance of the product. By contrast, process
innovations provide a competitive advantage via the efficiency/productivity gains
obtained through the introduction of more effective ways of producing (pre-existing)
products (Evangelista and Vezzani, 2010). Process innovation has a greater

impact on production cost but less influence on a firms sales growth or market
share than product innovation (Cheng et al., 2010). On the other hand, organizational
innovation and market innovation deal with the changes in the organizational structure
of a company and moves to exploit new territorial markets or new market segments
within existing markets (Cheng et al., 2010). The introduction of an organizational
innovation is important to objectives such as the reduction of the time needed to
respond to customer or supplier needs and the improvement of the quality of goods
(Evangelista and Vezzani, 2010). Johne and Davies (2000) found that marketing
innovations increase sales by increasing product consumption and yield additional profit
for firms. According to Kim et al. (2012), organizational innovation and market innovation
(administrative innovation) increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of managerial
systems and processes by obtaining new resources or adopting new programs. In
addition, enhancing administrative systems and processes adds value for a firm directly
and for its customers indirectly. Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed:
H1. There is a positive and strong association between innovation capability and
operational performance.
product quality.
financial performance.
Many authors support the view that market share is positively related to high product
quality. Garvin (1987) reports that quality improvement makes companies increase
their market share, product value and price and consequently the financial benefits.
Handfield et al. (1998) claim that when product quality is improved, waste is reduced,
efficiency is increased and consequently a firm increases its profitability. Furthermore,
Du Brin (1995) notes that product quality contributes to sales and market share
increase. Primrose and Leonard (1987) found also an increase in sales and profits. In the
same way, Jacobson and Aaker (1987) state that product quality has a positive impact
on the return on investments, market share and product price. According to Anderson
and Gerbing (1988) high product quality positively influences customer satisfaction
and consequently the financial performance of a company. Furthermore, Heras et al.
(2002) reviewing the research studies, reach the conclusion that improved product
quality is related to sales and profit margin increase. Taking into consideration the
previous research referred to above, the following research hypothesis is formulated:
4. Improved product quality is positively related to financial performance.
When the production stage of a company is improved, the associate cost can be
decreased, thus, the company can be competitive and enter new markets (Deming,
1986). Handfield et al. (1998) state that, the return on assets and company profits are
increased as a result of waste reduction and improvements in efficiency. Furthermore,
Heskett et al. (1997) concluded that improved operational performance increases both
sales and profits. The improved financial performance of a company as a result of
improved operational performance was noted also by Benner and Veloso (2008).
Impact of
innovation
capability
109
JMTM
26,1
110
However, in such a case, the companys production costs are decreased by developing
efficient internal processes. In other words, improving operational performance increases
financial performance (Ou et al., 2010). In addition, the findings from the study of Flynn
et al. (1995) show that improved operational performance results in fewer defective
products, decreased quality cost, increased productivity, on time product delivery and
finally in increased business performance. Jang and Lin (2008) also reach the conclusion
that operational performance influences market performance positively. Taking into
account the above studies, we reach the following hypothesis:
5. Improved operational performance is positively related to financial performance.
According to the findings of the empirical research study of Forza and Filippini (1998),
product quality is positively influenced by the improvement of process management
practices. The same conclusion was also reached by the study of Ahire and Dreyfus
(2000). Furthermore, Heskett et al. (1997) state that improving operational performance
results in more attractive products from a customer perspective. Similarly, Handfield
et al. (1998) note that a reduction in product wastage, coupled with improvement in
productivity result in increased product quality and company profits. Furthermore, the
studies of Psomas and Fotopoulos (2009) and Psomas et al. (2011) found that process
management practices have a strong and direct effect on quality improvement.
Consequently, this study hypothesizes the following:
6. Improved operational performance is positively related to product quality.
Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model and a graphical representation of the studys
hypotheses.
3. Research methodology
To test the above hypotheses, a questionnaire consisting of 40 questions was developed by
the authors through a multi step process. All measured variables of the questionnaire
were adopted following a comprehensive literature review. The questionnaire was judged
through structured interviews with eight professionals of manufacturing companies and
finally it was pilot tested on 43 manufacturing companies in Greece, proving its
appropriateness and achieving the content validity of the constructs. The results of the
pilot survey show the same trends as the results of the final sample. All questions
Product
Quality
H2
H4
H6
H3
Innovation
Capability
Figure 1.
Hypotheses and
conceptual model to
be tested
H1
Financial
Performance
H5
Operational
Performance
(37 items) of the seven factors/dimensions were measured on a seven point modified Likert
scale (1 very low to 7 very high). The measurement items used in the survey are listed
in the Appendix.
The population chosen for this study was manufacturing companies in all sectors
of economic activity in Greece so as not to bias the final results. The questionnaire
was sent by e-mail to 1,000 manufacturing companies that had been recorded on the
database of ICAP (the largest business information and consulting firm in Greece).
The companies were randomly selected after checking to ensure that large companies did
not have multiple plants included in the sample. The data base also provided names and
contact details of the companies. It was requested that the questionnaire be answered by
the general manager or another manager designated by him/her because of the latters
familiarity with the issues dealt with in the questionnaire. The respondents chosen have
the best knowledge of the innovation process in their organization. The manufacturing
companies are heterogeneous in terms of sub-sectors and product/process complexity, so
the sample was stratified by size, quality systems registration and sub-sector. Data on
these characteristics were available on the population database and were also collected in
the questionnaire. Finally, a total of 233 valid questionnaires satisfying the criterion for
SEM analysis (Wu and Liu, 2010) were collected, yielding a response rate of 23.3 per cent.
A profile of the responding firms is provided in Table I.
In our study, the respondents completed the survey instrument individually and
independently within an eight-week period. Consequently the independence of each
predictor variable was not violated. To measure the equality of variances for a single
variable or pair of variables, the Levene test is used showing that the p-value for the
test is W 0.05 significance level, indicating variation in homogeneity (Feng et al.,
2008). Each of the variables was examined individually for unique or extreme
observations, and no case was defined with a threshold value of a standard score up to
3 (Hair et al., 2006). By calculating the Mahalanobis d-squared distance, it was found
that no observations exceed the threshold value of 3 and so no data points are
Profile of the responding firms
Manufacturing companies sector
Food and beverages
Agricultural products
Machinery and equipment
Metal products
Plastic, chemical and associated products
Medicines/cosmetics
Various industrial products
Number of employees
0-10
11-50
51-100
101-250
251-500
500 over
Quality systems
ISO 9001
ISO 22000 or HACCP
ISO 14000
Number
84
54
28
19
11
14
23
36
23
12
8
5
6
10
61
82
35
21
19
15
26
36
15
9
8
6
119
126
25
51
54
11
Impact of
innovation
capability
111
Table I.
The sample
demographic
characteristics
JMTM
26,1
112
deleted from the analysis. As far as the normality of the data is concerned, all the
measured variables in this study exhibit univariate normality and do not suffer from
skew and kurtosis ( o 1), indicating, but not guaranteeing, multivariate normality
(Hair et al., 2006). In addition, the scatter plot shows constant variance of error terms
(Homoscedasticity), while the histogram and normal P-P plots of the standardized
residuals also indicate normality of the error term.
The analysis adopted in this study includes an initial EFA (principal component
extraction method with varimax orthogonal rotation), to uncover the underlying
structure of the variables. Then, CFA is used to refine the resulting scales in
EFA and to determine if the number of factors and the loadings of the measured
variables (i.e. indicators) on them conform to what is expected on the basis of
pre-established theory (Narayan et al., 2008). Multicollinearity, unidimensionality, scale
reliability and construct validity are undertaken for the study variables as suggested
by Lakhal et al. (2006) and Hair et al. (2006). The model and the hypotheses are
tested using SEM via path analysis, as it is a multivariate analytic methodology
that gives insights into the causal ordering of variables in a system of relationships
(Fynes and Voss, 2001). The statistical packages SPSS 16 and AMOS 6 were used for
data processing.
4. Data analysis and results
4.1 Construct validity of innovation dimensions
EFA and CFA are used to assess construct validity (Hair et al., 2006; Akroush et al., 2011).
The purpose of factor analysis in this study is to explore how various items within each of
the constructs interact with one another, and to develop scales (by combining several closely
correlated items) to be used in the following analysis on linkage. Factor analytic methods are
useful for observing the underlying patterns or relationships for a large number of variables
and they determine whether the information can be condensed or summarized in a smaller
set of factors or components (Gunday et al., 2011). As a result of the EFA, four latent factors
(constructs) are established explaining 72.259 per cent of the total variance. These four
factors are labelled based on the items included in each (product innovation, process
innovation, marketing innovation, organizational innovation). Table II shows the results of
EFA for the innovation dimensions scale components (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.916,
Bartletts test of Sphericity 2271.436, p 0.00, eigen-valueW1, MSAW0.80, factor
loadingsW0.694). The reliability of the factors of the innovation is confirmed through
Cronbachs coefficients. The Cronbachs values range from 0.831 to 0.885 suggesting
satisfactory level of construct reliability, since when Cronbachs values are W0.70, the
scale is accepted as reliable (Hair et al., 2006). The uni-dimensionality of the set of measured
statements for each factor is confirmed. Five items (V005, V006, V008, V013, V016)
that demonstrate cross-loading W0.4 on more than one latent factor are dropped because
they do not provide pure measures of a specific factor.
In order to determine whether the extracted latent factors show acceptable fit to the
empirical data, the CFA (maximum likelihood estimation technique) is also applied in
addition to EFA. Thus, a series of tests are also performed to further determine the
construct validity of the latent factors (Singh, 2008). The results show that the four
factors revealed using EFA are also confirmed through CFA. The extracted latent
factors show acceptable fit to the empirical data (Table III).
Construct validation also includes tests for face, convergent and discriminant
validity. The latent factors revealed and their associated items possess a sufficient level
Items
V017
V018
V019
V021
V020
V002
V001
V003
V004
V010
V011
V007
V009
V012
V015
V014
Eigenvalue
Cumulative variance per cent
Cronbach
Constructs
Factor loading
Organizational
Product
innovation
innovation
Process
innovation
Marketing
innovation
0.766
0.756
0.732
0.723
0.707
Impact of
innovation
capability
113
0.812
0.798
0.754
0.739
0.798
0.750
0.720
0.694
7.850
49.064
0.885
1.553
58.769
0.883
1.085
65.547
0.848
0.863
0.744
0.726
1.074
72.259
0.831
of face validity, as the survey instrument was mainly adopted from the existing
literature, reviewed by experts in the field and pilot tested (Hair et al., 2006).
Convergent validity refers to the extent to which varying approaches to the
measurement of the latent factors yield the same results. It is demonstrated if a group
of items measure one common factor (Su et al., 2008). The convergent validity of the
four innovation dimensions (latent factors) are confirmed by evaluating the factor
loadings ( W 0.645), the average variance extracted (AVE) ( W 0.578) and the construct
reliability (CR) (W 0.897) in all cases (Hair et al., 2006). The AVE estimate is similar to
the composite reliability, but differs in that standardized loadings are squared before
being added. It measures the amount of variance for the specified indicators accounted
for by the latent construct. Higher variance extracted values occur when the indicators
are truly representative of the latent construct. The variance extracted value is a
complimentary measure for the construct reliability value. A value above 0.50 for AVE
of any construct is accepted.
Discriminant validity checks whether the items estimate only the assigned latent
factor and no others (Singh, 2008). Discriminant validity is evaluated by comparing
the AVE with the shared variance (i.e. square of the correlation) between each pair
of latent factors (Singh et al., 2011). In each case, the AVE is greater than the
Corr2, confirming the discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2006) (Table IV). The nomological
validity (significant correlations among the extracted latent factors) and criterion-related
validity of the extracted latent factors are also tested. The results provide strong evidence
that the proposed latent factors of innovation dimensions pass rigorous testing of
these types of validities.
In the case of the present study, a higher order model is constructed using
innovation capability as a second-order factor that explains the four first-order
Table II.
Exploratory factor
analysis of
innovation
dimensions
Table III.
The fit indices of the
sub-models and the
overall measurement
and structural model
Absolute fit indices

2
159.574
153.616
df
95
96
Root mean square residual (RMR)
0.052
0.054
Root mean square of approximation (RMSEA)
0.054
0.051
Incremental fit indices
Incremental Fit Index (IFI)
0.971
0.974
Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI)
0.963
0.967
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
0.971
0.974
Normed Fit Index (NFI)
0.932
0.934
Relative Fit Index (RFI)
0.914
0.918
Parsimonious fit indices
2/df
1.680
1.600
Parsimonious Normed Fit Index (PNFI)
0.764
0.766
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI)
0.892
0.896
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)
0.924
0.926
Notes: aHair et al. (2006), Sadikoglu and Zehir (2010), Singh et al. (2011)
Second-order
innovation
capability
model
701.026
353
0.058
0.065
0.926
0.914
0.925
0.911
0.907
1.986
0.781
0.792
0.831
0.962
0.950
0.962
0.936
0.917
2.362
0.805
0.875
0.918
Structural
model
141.742
60
0.042
0.067
Firm
performance
model
1.636
0.794
0.827
0.859
0.926
0.919
0.925
0.913
0.915
579.303
354
0.063
0.052
Measurement
model
114
Fit indices
Innovation
dimensions
model
o3.0
W 0.50
W 0.50
W 0.50
W 0.90
W 0.90
W 0.90
W 0.90
W 0.90
o 0.08
o 0.08
022df
Acceptable
fit indicesa
JMTM
26,1
factors (the innovation dimensions). In the second-order factor model, it is hypothesized

that the innovation capability factor explains the association between the four
first-order factors of innovation dimensions, thus avoiding the problem of correlated
measurement errors (Hair et al., 2006). Wang and Ahmed (2004) also identified a
second-order factor (innovative orientation) through five innovation dimensions
(product, market, process, behavioural and strategic innovativeness) to describe an
organizations overall innovativeness. The overall validity of the second-order factor
model in this study is tested using multiple fit criteria. The results of the second-order
CFA indicate that the fit statistics represent a good fit of the data to the proposed
second-order measurement model (Table III). In addition, all the second-order factor
loadings are positive and statistically significant.
Impact of
innovation
capability
115
4.2 Construct validity of firm performance dimensions

The analysis process described above with regard to innovation dimensions is also
followed for firm performance dimensions. Thus, the result of the EFA is the
establishment of three latent factors, namely product quality, operational performance
and financial performance (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.859, Bartletts test of
Sphericity 2159,462 p 0.000, MSA W 0.80, factor loading W 0.761). Three items
were dropped (V023, V031, V037) because of cross-loadings W 0.4 on more than one
factor. The reliability of the extracted factor (Cronbachs coefficients W 0.893) is also
supported. Table V represents the results of EFA.
Using the CFA to evaluate the three factors of firm performance produced results
which show that all of the standardized regression weights are above 0.6. The index of
the amount of variance of each latent factor accounted for in its indicators is above the
recommended level of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The convergent validity of the 3
latent factors is confirmed (factor loadings W 0.761, AVE W 0.631 and CR W 0.936) in all
cases. Discriminant validity is evidenced by the fact that the Corr2 is less than the AVE
for each construct (Table VI).
The fit indices of the firm performance model are indicative of a good fit of the data
(Table III).
4.3 Model estimation
In this study the measurement and structural models are performed sequentially
(Fynes et al., 2005). In the first step CFA is conducted, while in the second step the
hypothesized model is tested (Singh, 2008). The fit indices of the measurement model
and the structural model suggest that the theoretical model has an adequate level of
empirical support (Table III). Thus, these two models fit the data satisfactorily. After
performing the above tests, the SEM procedures are applied (maximum likelihood
Latent factors
Average variance extracteda
Construct reliabilityb
(Corr)2c
Organizational innovation
0.578
0.932
0.515
Product innovation
0.646
0.927
0.490
Process innovation
0.592
0.909
0.490
Marketing innovation
0.621
0.897
0.515
Notes: aAVE 2i /n, (number of items i 1, , n, i standardized factor loading); bCR (i)2/
((i)2+(i)), (number of items i 1 n, i standardized factor loading, i error term); cthe highest
squared correlation between the factor of interest and the remaining factors
Table IV.
Validity of
innovation
dimensions
performance
constructs
JMTM
26,1
Items
116
Table V.
Exploratory factor
analysis of firms
performance
V033
V034
V032
V035
V036
V024
V025
V022
V026
V028
V030
V029
V027
Eigenvalue
Cumulative variance per cent
Cronbach
Latent factors
Table VI.
Validity of firms
performance
constructs
Financial performance
Constructs
Factor loading
Product quality Operational performance
0.883
0.856
0.823
0.775
0.761
0.875
0.873
0.836
0.815
5.531
42.547
0.895
Average variance extracteda
3.152
66.796
0.893
0.863
0.814
0.804
0.769
1.121
75.415
0.906
Construct reliabilityb
(Corr)2c
Product quality
0.690
0.940
0.269
0.724
0.888
0.037
0.631
0.936
0.269
Notes: aAVE 2i /n, (number of items i 1, . n, i standardized factor loading); bCR (i)2/
((i)2+(i)), (number of items i 1, . n, i standardized factor loading, i error term); cthe
highest squared correlation between the factor of interest and the remaining factors
method) to estimate the causal relations between the latent variables and confirm or
refute the hypothesis presented earlier (1-6). Figure 2 presents the estimated
standardized parameters for the causal paths and the results of the squared multiple
correlations for the endogenous factors.
Based on Figure 2, it is apparent that innovation capability has a significant and
positive effect, primarily, on operational performance (1: b 0.704, p o 0.000) and
secondarily on product quality (2: b 0.304, p o 0.002). Thus, the 1 and 2 of the
present study are accepted. Overall, 49.6 per cent of the variation in operational
performance is explained by innovation capability. By contrast, the 3 is not accepted
(3: b 0.158, p 0.119), meaning that innovation capability does not have a
significant effect on financial performance. The companys financial performance is
significantly and positively influenced by operational performance (5: b 0.583,
p o 0.000), however, it is negatively influenced by product quality (4: b 0.311,
p 0.000). Thus, the 4 is rejected while the 5 is accepted. Finally, according to the
findings, product quality is significantly and positively influenced by a companys
operational performance (6: b 0.314, p 0.001), resulting in the acceptance of the
6. Overall 32.5 per cent of the variation in product quality can be explained by
innovation capability and firms operational performance. Furthermore, 34.9 per cent of
V001
V002
0.695
V003
0.889
V004
0.892
0.712
0.763
0.304
0.814
V009
V032
0.645
V010
0.838
V011
0.757
0.314
Process
Innovation
0.611
V014
V015
Marketing
Innovation
0.657
0.716
0.807
Financial
Performance
0.349
0.158
Innovation
Capability
0.763
0.687
0.673
V034
V035
V036
0.704
0.747
V018
0.810
V019
0.761
Operational
Performance
0.496
V020
0.783
V021
0.811
V027
0.896
V028
0.866
V029
117
V033
0.876
Organizational
Innovation
0.767
V017
0.883
0.919
0.583
0.832
0.781
0.311
0.782
0.811
V012
Impact of
innovation
capability
V026
V025
0.759 0.873 0.908 0.765
Product
Quality
0.325
Product
Innovation
0.582
V007
V024
V022
0.838
V030
the variation in financial performance can be explained only by operational performance.

The structural model parameters are summarized in Table VII. So, these findings support
the widespread idea that innovation is a key driving force in company success.
5. Discussion
The majority of the companies participating in the present study are small and
medium-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMEs), given that 77 per cent employ <100
employees, and 9 per cent employ more than 100 and <250 employees. In fact, Greek
manufacturing companies in general are SMEs (Panigyrakis et al., 2009). It is worth
noting that in Greece, many companies, irrespective of sector, are family-owned
companies (Psomas et al., 2011). So, their small-medium size, based on the number of
employees, is partly justified.
The present study makes several useful points about the hypothesized model
and its empirical validation. It contributes to the existing research by combining
four basic innovation dimensions (product, process, marketing and organizational)
and introducing the new second order construct innovation capability, to develop
a dynamic model in order to examine its effects on the three dimensions (product
quality, operational performance and financial performance) of the manufacturing
SMEs performance. The innovation capability construct takes us a step forward
towards effectively measuring an organizations innovative activity. The existing
researches focus on one or two aspects of innovation (product and/or process
innovation). For example, the study of Laforet and Tann (2006) within the
manufacturing sector identified that SMEs are more engaged in process innovation
than in product innovation. In addition, the study by Lin and Chen (2007) of Taiwanese
SMEs within the manufacturing and service sectors revealed that technological
and marketing innovation were the major types of innovation adopted within firms.
In this study, the proposed innovation capability construct captures the principal
elements of four innovation dimensions giving a thorough assessment of a firms
innovative capability.
Figure 2.
Theoretical model,
showing estimated
standardized
parameters for the
causal paths and the
results of the squared
multiple correlations
Table VII.
Relationships
between constructs
1. Innovation capabilityoperational performance

0.704
2. Innovation capabilityproduct quality
0.304
3. Innovation capabilityfinancial performance
0.158
4. Product qualityfinancial performance
0.311
5. Operational performancefinancial performance
0.583
6. Operational performanceproduct quality
0.314
Notes: NS Not statistically significant. *Significance at p o0.001
Relationships
Standardized
regression
weights
0.096
0.106
0.138
0.102
0.110
0.083
SE
0.000*
0.002
0.119
0.000*
0.000*
0.001
p-value
0.349
0.496
0.325
NS
Squared multiple
correlation
coefficient
Accept hypothesis
Accept hypothesis
Reject hypothesis
Reject hypothesis
Accept hypothesis
Accept hypothesis
Hypothesis
test results
JMTM
26,1
118
We must point out that the success or failure of innovation capability depends on a
firms technological base (Koellinger, 2008). Firms accumulate their technological
knowledge constantly and continuously over time, so that they are forming their own
technological base as a set of informational inputs, knowledge and capabilities
(Galende, 2006). It is to be expected that more technologically specialized firms are more
innovative (Garcia-Vega, 2006), since a unique technological base is formed for each firm.
Indeed, there are significant differences between firms in terms of their technological base.
Wang et al. (2008) point out that firms have different strengths and weaknesses in terms of
technology-based core capabilities. In addition, firm size provides a number of advantages
and is positively related to dynamic technological innovation performance (Stock et al.,
2002). More generally, larger size will allow a firm to accumulate a larger store of
technological knowledge and capabilities (Damanpour, 1991).
The proposed model that has been presented in this paper has a theoretical basis,
while, through its empirical validation, several useful points are revealed. More
specifically, it builds on the previous work of Loof et al. (2002), Kemp et al. (2003),
Sadikoglu and Zehir (2010), Jimnez-Jimnez and Sanz-Valle (2011), Yam et al. (2011)
and Gunday et al. (2011) in terms of the operationalization of the relationships that exist
between innovation and various dimensions of a firms performance. We extend the
existing research by exploring issues that have been missing in prior studies. More
specifically, a reliable and valid second-order model has been developed demonstrating
the existence of a broad concept that is determined by the successful implementation of
innovative activities mainly in SMEs. We introduce the second-order factor innovation
capability, that can be assessed indirectly through the assessment of its sub-factors
(innovation dimensions), which in turn can also be assessed indirectly through the
assessment of their indicators that are directly measured. Based on an extensive
literature review, this study represents the first research project in the innovation
management field that operationalizes innovation capability and empirically tests its
relationship with the three dimensions of manufacturing firms performance.
The next way in which the present study contributes to the literature is that it
examines relationships between firms innovation capability and their performance
dimensions together in a single model. To our knowledge, this is the first empirical
attempt at defining and confirming the casual path between innovation capability,
firms financial performance, operational performance and product quality. The
innovative manufacturing firms benefit from improvement in the value of operational
performance (1) and product quality (2). The findings are in line with the
observations of Sadikoglu and Zehir (2010), Gunday et al. (2011) and Peng et al. (2011)
which show that innovation has a significant and positive impact on firms operational
performance. In addition, Chudnovsky et al. (2006) claim that innovative companies
attain higher productivity levels than non-innovating ones. Their findings also
underline our suggestion that firms with high innovative capability are rewarded by
high product quality. Prajogo et al. (2008) also found a significant link between product
quality and product innovation, while Koufteros and Marcoulides (2006) report that
firms that have higher product innovation capability also have higher levels of product
quality. In fact, innovation, by exploiting new technologies, is often aimed at improving
several aspects of product quality.
Yet another important finding of this study is the positive but weak and
non - statistical significant sign of the relationship between innovation capability and
financial performance (3). It contributes to the current knowledge since doubt exists
among researchers and practitioners about the economic justification for innovation
Impact of
innovation
capability
119
JMTM
26,1
120
and particularly about the direct impact of innovation on the financial benefits for focal
firms. Several researchers have asserted that innovation capability can positively
improve firms financial performance (Clayton and Turner, 1998; Hult et al., 2004;
Jenssen and Randy, 2006; Keskin, 2006). Oke et al. (2007), similar to the present study,
investigated SMEs and found that there is a link between innovation and sales
turnover growth in SMEs. The findings of Varis and Littunen (2010) also support the
view that the introduction of novel product, process and market innovations is
positively associated with SMEs growth. Nevertheless, the findings of this paper were
consistent with Panayides (2006) and Yang et al. (2009). They too found that there was
a lack of support for a significant positive relationship between innovation capability
and financial performance.
However, innovation capability was found to have a significantly positive effect on
operational performance which, in turn, was found to have a significantly positive
effect on financial performance especially of the manufacturing SMEs. In other words,
instead of a direct effect, innovation capability had an indirect impact on financial
performance mediated by operational performance. This lack of a direct relationship
can be explained by the fact that the implementation of innovation activities make a
firm invest in new technology, adopt flexible work practices and address all its
processes. So, the introduction of innovation activities entails extra cost and affects
profitability, especially of the manufacturing SMEs.
Likewise, the present study does not produce any evidence to support the
proposition that the improved product quality is positively related to financial
performance (4). Our findings are more consistent with the work of Fynes and Voss
(2001), whose empirical research has not provided strong support for a quality
performance financial performance relationship. However, the evidence provided in
this paper suggests that operational performance does significantly contribute to
financial performance (5). In particular, this research indicates that manufacturing
capability coming from the innovation capability of a company must be taken into
account to explain its contribution to financial performance. The present study findings
are consistent with many previous researches (Naveh and Marcus, 2005; Jang and Lin,
2008; Ou et al., 2010) and enable us to conclude that operational performance is a
determinant of financial performance.
Finally, the results of the present study suggest that by improving the elements of
operational performance, a company improves product quality and consequently
makes the products more attractive to customers (6). To our knowledge, this is one of
the few empirical attempts to define and confirm the casual path between firms
operational performance and product quality.
6. Conclusion
In this study, a theoretical model has been developed that focuses on the Greek
manufacturing sector. All the scales have been tested through rigorous statistical
methodologies including the pilot test method, EFA, CFA, construct reliability and
validation of the second-order factor model. Four distinct innovation dimensions have
been identified on the basis of overall innovation of manufacturing firms. Two of these
innovation dimensions are characterized by pure process and product oriented
innovation activities; a third is based on the introduction of organizational innovations
and a fourth one is characterized by marketing changes. This approach to the variety
of innovation dimensions is sufficient to depict the different firms innovation
strategies within the manufacturing sector.
Furthermore, important contributions to the existing literature can be derived from the
results of this paper. This study is one of the first attempts to link the innovation
capability of a firm with the three dimensions of firm performance, thus contributing to
the theoretical development of organizational innovation and narrowing the literature gap
in several ways. First, enlarging the analysis of innovation beyond the technological
domain and introducing organizational and marketing dimensions, provides a much
richer and more complex picture of firms innovation strategies and performance. The
statistical evidence presented in Section 4 has shown that these four different dimensions
of innovation are expressed by a second-order factor, namely firm innovation capability.
Second, the evidence provided in this paper suggests that the innovation capability has
no direct impact on manufacturing firms financial performance. This is of course a little
different from the traditional innovation philosophy and research. Yet our study does
show that innovation capability directly contributes to product quality and operational
performance, while indirectly contributing to financial performance through the
moderator of operational performance. This result is an important contribution and has
important implications (within the constraints of the study sample size). Third, this study
indicates that operational performance must be taken into account to explain its positive
contribution to product quality. Thus, in order for a manufacturing company to increase
its performance and gain competitive advantages, it should focus on increasing the level
of innovation that is implemented. This is potentially a major contribution to the
innovation and operations management literature. Finally, our findings support the fact
that innovation strategy is an important major driving force behind firm performance and
should be developed and executed as an integral part of business strategy. In short, this
result confirms the importance of innovation and provides support for the encouragement
of innovation in manufacturing companies.
Managerial implications
The findings of the present study carry managerial messages. Managers should put
additional emphasis on innovation capability as it is an important element for
achieving improved overall firm performance and sustainable competitive power. The
relationship between innovation capability and firm performance may provide a guide
as to how companies should achieve better performance by using innovation. Firms
that do not focus on the four innovation dimensions may have to look elsewhere to find
ways to survive. In order to achieve greater advantages from the adoption of
innovation, managers should focus on practices that directly increase the level to which
the innovation dimensions are achieved. Having a clear understanding of the exact
nature of innovations will help firms to prioritize their market, production and
technology strategies, to be followed by an appropriate subsequent plan of action. The
conclusions of this study seem to be especially important for smaller and younger firms
and for those firms operating in highly turbulent environments. Thus, this can help a
manufacturing SME withstand the current downturn and survive in an unstable and
financially unhealthy business environment. The fact that the current economic
downturn and financial crisis prevail not only in Greece but in many other European
countries too, strengthens this point of view and managerial message. This study has
also added implications for governments and consultants whose aim is to support the
strategic development efforts of companies (especially SMEs). So, our study offers clear
practical implications for managers who desire to choose strategies and allocate
resources in order to improve their companys operational performance and product
quality. Indeed, when innovation becomes a way of life, companies are not competing in
Impact of
innovation
capability
121
JMTM
26,1
terms of innovations per se; rather they are competing for company-wide devotion that
will transform innovation into competitiveness. There is no doubt that the twenty-first
century will be credited with being the century of innovation. The message from this
study is that creating a successful innovation platform may prove to be the most
critical catalyst for a companys success.
122
Limitations and future research recommendations

Although the empirical analysis applied in the present study is based on data from a
significant number of establishments in the manufacturing sector, there are also a number
of limitations associated with this study that suggest future research proposals. First, the
empirical validation of the model is based on Greek manufacturing firms, so the results
may not be applicable to all company populations. Future research should explore if the
results we observe concerning this sample of companies are applicable to a greater
population of companies from other countries with a different technological base or to
specific subsectors of the manufacturing industry (e.g. the food industry). The use of
longitudinal data and comparisons with this study would provide further insights that
would assist in generalizing knowledge related to the relationship between innovation
capabilities and firms performance. Second, the effects of the internal business
environment and endogenous business factors have not been assessed through the
present study. Thus, it is worth examining the effect of a firms characteristics such as
leadership, organizational learning, process management, quality management and
human resources on innovation capability and firm performance. Third, the
questionnaires have no qualitative data. Carrying out interviews with members of the
firms included in the sample would have enriched the paper by providing a better
understanding of the causal mechanisms between innovation capability and firm
performance. Finally, future studies could use quantitative variables (e.g. financial indices)
for assessment of the financial performance to obtain a more complete view of the
relationships studied in this paper.
References
Abrunhosa, A. and Moura E S, P. (2008), Are TQM principles supporting innovation in the
Portuguese footwear industry?, Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 208-221.
Ahire, S.L. and Dreyfus, P. (2000), The impact of design management and process management
on quality: an empirical examination, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 549-575.
Ahuja, G. (2000), Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 425-455.
Akroush, M., Dahiyat, S., Gharaibeh, H. and Abu-Lail, B. (2011), Customer relationship
management implementation, International Journal of Commerce and Management,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 158-191.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Avanitis, S. and Hollerstein, H. (2002), The impact of spillovers and knowledge heterogeneity on
firm performance: evidence from Swiss manufacturing, in Kleinknecht, A. and Mohnen, D.
(Eds), Innovation and Firm Performance, Palgrave, London, pp. 225-252.
Avermaete, T., Viaene, J., Morgan, E.J. and Crawford, N. (2003), Determinants of innovation in
small food firms, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 8-17.
Baldwin, J.R. and Johnson, J. (1996), Business strategies in more- and less-innovative firms in
Canada, Research Policy, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 785-804.
Becheikh, N., Landry, R. and Amara, N. (2006), Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the
manufacturing sector: a systematic review of the literature from 1993-2003, Technovation,
Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 644-664.
Benner, M.J. and Veloso, F.M. (2008), ISO 9000 practices and financial performance: a technology
coherence perspective, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 611-629.
Bougrain, F. and Haudeville, B. (2002), Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal research
capacities, Research Policy, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 735-747.
Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao, Y. (2002), Learning orientation, firm innovation capability,
and firm performance, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 515-524.
Capon, N., Farley, J.U. and Hoenig, S. (1990), Determinants of financial performance: a metaanalysis, Management Science, Vol. 36, pp. 1143-1159.
Chandler, G.N. and Hanks, S.H. (1994), Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities,
venture strategies, and venture performance, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 331-349.
Chang, Y., Linton, J. and Chen, M. (2012), Service regime: an empirical analysis of innovation patterns
in service firms, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 79 No. 10, pp. 1569-1582.
Cheng, C., Lai, M. and Wu, W. (2010), Exploring the impact of innovation strategy on R&D
employees job satisfaction: a mathematical model and empirical research, Technovation,
Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 459-470.
Chudnovsky, D., Lopez, A. and Pupato, G. (2006), Innovation and productivity in developing
countries: a study of Argentine manufacturing firms behavior (19922001), Research
Policy, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 266-288.
Clayton, T. and Turner, G. (1998), Brands, innovation and growth, in Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and
Pavitt, K. (Eds), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and
Organizational Change, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Conca, F.J., Llopis, J. and Tari, J.J. (2004), Development of a measure to assess quality constructs,
Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 12-27.
Cormican, K. and OSullivan, D. (2004), Auditing best practice for effective product innovation
management, Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 819-829.
Damanpour, F. (1991), Organizational Innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-590.
De Propris, L. (2002), Types of innovation and inter-firm co-operation, Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 337-353.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study,
Cambridge, MA.
Diederen, P., van Meijl, H. and Wolters, A. (2002), Innovation and farm performance: the case
of Dutch agriculture, in Kleinknecht, A. and Mohnen, D. (Eds), Innovation and Firm
Performance, Palgrave, London pp. 73-85.
Du Brin, A.J. (1995), Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills, Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, MA.
Evangelista, R. and Vezzani, A. (2010), The economic impact of technological and organizational
innovations. a firm-level analysis, Research Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 1253-1263.
Favre, F., Negassi, S. and Pfister, E. (2000), The effects of spillovers and government subsidies
on R&D, international R&D cooperation and profits, in Kleinknecht and Mohnen (Eds),
Palgrave, London, pp. 201-224.
Impact of
innovation
capability
123
JMTM
26,1
Feng, M., Terziovski, M. and Samson, D. (2008), Relationship of ISO 9000:2000 quality system
certification with operational and business performance, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 22-37.
Flynn, B., Schroeder, G. and Sakakibara, S. (1995), The impact of quality management practices
on performance and competitive advantage, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 659-691.
124
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XVIII Nos 7/8,
pp. 39-50.
Forsman, H. (2011), Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises.

A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors, Research Policy, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 739-750.
Forza, C. and Filippini, R. (1998), TQM impact on quality conformance and customer
satisfaction: a causal model, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 1-20.
Fynes, B. and Voss, C. (2001), A path analytic model of quality practices, quality performance, and
business performance, Production and Operation Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 494-513.
Fynes, B., Voss, C. and Burca, S. (2005), The impact of supply chain relationship quality
on quality performance, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96 No. 3,
pp. 339-354.
Galende, J. (2006), Analysis of technological innovation from business economics and
management, Technovation, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 300-311.
Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002), A critical look at technological innovation typology and
innovativeness terminology: a literature review, The Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 110-132.
Garcia-Vega, . (2006), Does technological diversification promote innovation? An empirical
analysis for European firms, Research Policy, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 230-246.
Garvin, D.A. (1987), Competing on the eight dimensions of quality, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 101-109.
Gill, J. (2009), Quality follows quality: add quality to the business and quality will multiply the
profits, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 530-539.
Guan, J. and Ma, N. (2003), Innovative capability and export performance of Chinese firms,
Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 737-747.
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K. and Alpkan, L. (2011), Effects of innovation types on firm
performance, Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 133 No. 9, pp. 662-676.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 5th ed., Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Han, J., Trienekens, J.H. and Omta, S.W.F. (2009), Integrated information and logistics
management, quality management and firm performance of pork processing industry in
China, British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 9-25.
Handfield, R., Ghosh, S. and Fawcett, S. (1998), Quality-driven change and its effects on financial
performance, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 13-30.
Hashi, I. and Stojcic, N. (2010), The Impact of Innovation Activities on Firm Performance Using a
Multi Stage Model: Evidence From the Community Innovation Survey 4, Center for Social
and Economic Research, Warsaw.
Heras, I., Casadesus, M. and Dick, G. (2002), ISO 9000 certification and the bottom line: a
comparative study of the profitability of Basque region companies, Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 72-78.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. Jr and Schlesinger, L.A. (1997),
Putting the service profit chain to work, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2,
pp. 164-174.
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F. and Knight, G.A. (2004), Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on
business performance, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 429-438.
Jacobson, R. and Aaker, D.A. (1987), The strategic role of product quality, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 31-44.
Jang, W. and Lin, C. (2008), An integrated framework for ISO 9000 motivation, depth of ISO
implementation and firm performance, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Jenssen, J.I. and Randy, T. (2006), The performance effect of innovation in shipping companies,
Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 327-343.
Jimnez-Jimnez, D. and Sanz-Valle, R. (2011), Innovation, organizational learning, and
performance, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 408-417.
Jin, Z., Hewitt-Dundas, N. and Thompson, N.J. (2004), Innovativeness and performance: evidence
from manufacturing sectors, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 255-266.
Johne, A. and Davies, R. (2000), Innovation in medium-sized insurance companies: how
marketing adds value, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 6-14.
Kemp, R., Folkeringa, M., de Jong, J. and Wubben, E. (2003), Innovation and firm performance,
scales research reports, EIM Business and Policy Research, Zoetermeer.
Keskin, H. (2006), Marketing orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in
SEMs: an extended model, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 396-417.
Ketokivi, M.A. and Schroeder, R.G. (2004), Manufacturing practices, strategic fit and
performance a routine-based view, International Journal of Operations & Production
Kim, D.Y., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2012), Relationship between quality management practices
and innovation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 295-315.
Kleinknecht, A. and Mohnen, P. (Eds) (2002), Innovation and Firm Performance. Econometric
Explorations of Survey Data, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Koellinger, P. (2008), The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance:
empirical evidence from e-business in Europe, Research Policy, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1317-1328.
Koufteros, X. and Marcoulides, G. (2006), Product development practices and performance: a
structural equation modeling-based multi-group analysis, Int. J. Production Economics,
Vol. 103 No. 8, pp. 286-307.
Laforet, S. and Tann, J. (2006), Innovative characteristics of small manufacturing firms, Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 363-80.
Lakhal, L., Pasin, F. And Limam, M. (2006), Quality management practices and their impact
on performance, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 625-646.
Lee, C.C., Yang, J. and Yu, L.M. (2001), The knowledge value of customers and employees in
product quality, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 691-704.
Li, Y., Su, Z. and Liu, Y. (2012), Can strategic flexibility help firms profit from product
innovation?, Technovation, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 300-309.
Lin, C. and Chen, M.Y.C. (2007), Does innovation lead to performance? An empirical study of
SMEs in Taiwan, Management Research News, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 115-132.
Impact of
innovation
capability
125
JMTM
26,1
Lin, C. and Jang, W. (2008), Successful ISO 9000 implementation in Taiwan: how can we achieve
it, and what does it mean?, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Loof, H., Heshmati, A., Asplund, R. and Naas, S. (2002), Innovation and performance in
manufacturing industries: a comparison of Nordic countries, working paper, SSE/EFI
Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.
126
Luning, P.A., Marcelis, W.J. and Jongen, W.M.F. (2002), Food quality management, management
implementation, International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 158-191.
Markham, S.K. and Griffin, A. (1998), The breakfast of champions: associations between
champions and product development environments, practices, and performance, Journal
of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 5 Nos 5-6, pp. 436-454.
Martinez-Costa, M. and Martinez-Lorente, A.R. (2008), Does quality management foster or hinder
innovation? An empirical study of Spanish companies, Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-221.
McAdam, R. and Keogh, K. (2004), Transitioning towards creativity and innovation
measurement in SMEs, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 126-141.
Narayan, B., Rajendran, C. and Sai, L.P. (2008), Scales to measure and benchmark service quality
in tourism industry, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 469-493.
Naser, K., Karbhari, Y. and Mokhtar, M.Z. (2004), Impact of ISO 9000 registration on
company performance: evidence from Malaysia, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 509-516.
Nassimbeni, G. (2001), Technology, innovation capacity, and the export attitude of small
manufacturing firms: a logit/tobit model, Research Policy, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 245-262.
Naveh, E. and Marcus, A. (2005), Achieving competitive advantage through implementing a
replicable management standard: installing and using ISO 9000, Journal of Operations
OMara, C.E., Hyland, P.W. and Chapman, R.L. (1998), Performance measurement and strategic
change, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 178-182.
OECD (1997), Information Technology Outlook, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2005), Oslo Manual: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological
Innovation Data, OECD, Paris.
Oke, A., Burke, G. and Myers, A. (2007), Innovation types and performance in growing UK
SMEs, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 735-753.
Ou, C.S., Liu, F.C., Hung, Y.C. and Yen, D.C. (2010), A structural model of supply chain
management on firm performance, International Journal of Operations & Production
Panayides, P.M. (2006), Enhancing innovation capability through relationship management
and implications for performance, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 466-483.
Panigyrakis, G., Kapareliotis, I. and Ventoura, Z. (2009), Marketing and corporate profitability:
the case of Greek firms, Managerial Finance, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 909-917.
Peng, D., Schroeder, R. and Shah, R. (2011), Competitive priorities, plant improvement
and innovation capabilities, and operational performance: a test of two forms
of fit, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 No. 5,
pp. 484-510.
Prajogo, D., McDermott, P. and Goh, M. (2008), Impact of value chain activities on quality and
innovation, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 7,
pp. 615-635.
Prajogo, D.I. and Sohal, A.S. (2004), The multidimensionality of TQM practices in determining
quality and innovation performancean empirical examination, Technovation, Vol. 24
No. 6, pp. 443-453.
Primrose, P.L. and Leonard, R. (1987), Performing investment appraisals for advanced
production competence and additional evidence of its impact on business performance,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 548-583.
Psomas, E. and Fotopoulos, C. (2009), A meta analysis of ISO 9001:2000 research findings
and future research proposals, International Journal of Quality and Services Sciences,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 128-144.
Psomas, E., Fotopoulos, C. and Kafetzopoulos, P. (2011), Core process management practices,
quality tools and quality improvement in ISO 9001 certified manufacturing companies,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 437-460.
Rothwell, R. and Gardiner, P. (1998), Reinnovation and robust designs: producer and user
benefits, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 372-387.
Sadikoglu, E. and Zehir, C. (2010), Investigating the effects of innovation and employee
performance on the relationship between total quality management practices and firm
performance: an empirical study of Turkish firms, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 13-26.
Sebastianelli, R. and Tamimi, N. (2002), How product quality dimensions relate to defining
quality, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 442-453.
Singh, P. (2008), Empirical assessment of ISO 9000 related management practices and
performance relationships, Int. Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 40-59.
Singh, P., Powera, D. and Chuong, S. (2011), A resource dependence theory perspective of ISO
9000 in managing organizational environment, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 49-64.
Sousa, R. and Voss, C. (2002), Quality management re-visited: a reflective review and agenda for
future research, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 91-109.
Stock, G., Greis, N. and Fischer, W. (2002), Firm size and dynamic technological innovation,
Technovation, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 537-549.
Su, Q., Li, Z., Zhang, S.X., Liu, Y.Y. and Dang, J.X. (2008), The impacts of quality management
practices on business performance. An empirical investigation from China, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 809-823.
Subramanian, A. and Nilakanta, S. (1996), Organisational innovativeness: exploring the
relationship between organisational determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and
measures of organisational performance, Omega, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 631-647.
Tomlinson, P. (2010), Co-operative ties and innovation: some new evidence for UK
manufacturing, Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 762-775.
Uyar, A. (2009), Quality performance measurement practices in manufacturing companies, The
TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 72-86.
Varis, M. and Littunen, H. (2010), Types of innovation, sources of information and performance
in entrepreneurial SMEs, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 128-154.
Walker, R.M. (2004), Innovation and organizational performance: evidence and a research
agenda, Research Working Paper, WP No. 2, Advanced Institute of Management,
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, June.
Impact of
innovation
capability
127
JMTM
26,1
128
Wang, C., Iuan-yuan, L. and Chen, C. (2008), Evaluating firm technological innovation capability
under uncertainty, Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 349-363.
Wang, L.C. and Ahmed, K.P. (2004), The development and validation of the organisational
innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 303-313.
Weerawardena, J. (2003), The role of marketing capability in innovation based competitive
strategy, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 15-36.
Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2010), Innovation index and the innovative capacity of nations, Futures,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 247-253.
Wu, S.I. and Liu, S.Y. (2010), The performance measurement perspectives and causal
relationship for ISO-certified companies: a case of optoelectronic industry, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 27-47.
Yam, C.M., Guan, J.C., Pun, K.F. and Tang, P.Y. (2004), An audit of technological innovation
capabilities in Chinese firms: some empirical findings in Beijing, China, Research Policy,
Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1123-1250.
Yam, R., Lo, W., Tang, E. and Lau, A. (2011), Analysis of sources of innovation, technological
innovation capabilities, and performance: an empirical study of Hong Kong manufacturing
industries, Research Policy, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 391-402.
Yang, C., Marlow, P. and Lu, C. (2009), Assessing resources, logistics service capabilities,
innovation capabilities and the performance of container shipping services in Taiwan,
International. Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122 No. 6, pp. 4-20.
Yeung, A.L., Lee, T.S. and Chan, L.Y. (2003), Senior management perspectives and ISO 9000
effectiveness: an empirical research, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 545-569.
Further reading
Simpson, P., Siguaw, J. and Enz, A. (2002), Innovation orientation outcomes: the good and the
bad, Journal of Business Res, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 1133-1141.
Svandven, T. and Smith, K. (2000), Innovation and economic performance at the enterprise
level, Conference Innovation and Enterprise Creation: Statistics and Indicators, University
of Tasmania, Sophia Antipolis.
Appendix
Dimensions
Impact of
innovation
capability
Items
Code
Product innovation
The company introduces new and innovative products into
the market
The company has the capability to bring in new knowledge or
technologies to develop new products
Company efforts to develop new products in terms of hours/persons,
team and training involved
The company has the capability to use new materials, new product
function and new design
The companys products are modified and improved
The company enhances the manufacturing technology of
new products
129
V001
V002
V003
V004
V005
V006
Process innovation
The company has a pioneer disposition to introduce new processes
The company has the capability to adjust the processes at
all levels concerning the production process, inventory, distribution,
logistics, etc.
The company displays clever response to new processes introduced by
others companies
The company improves existing machinery and equipment.
The company uses machinery adaptations and develops original
processing solutions
V007
V008
V009
V010
V011
Marketing innovation
The company has close relationship management with major
customers
The company has good knowledge of different market segments
The company has a highly efficient sales-force
The companys product distribution is efficient
The company has good knowledge of market conditions
Organizational innovation
The company has good coordination and cooperation of R&D, sales,
marketing and manufacturing departments
The company has high level integration and control of the major
functions
The company has a high capacity for developing and gaining access to
new technologies
The company has a high level of capability at identifying the
innovative strategy of competitors
The company is highly capable of identifying external opportunities
and threats
Product quality
Products perceived quality compared with that of
competitors
Products reliability
Products general performance
Products durability
Products conformance to companys specifications
V012
V013
V014
V015
V016
V017
V018
V019
V020
V021
V022
V023
V024
V025
V026
(continued )
Table AI.
Dimensions of
innovation, firm
performance and
associated items
JMTM
26,1
130
Dimensions
Items
Companys productivity
Companys efficiency
Companys costs of supplies, production and sales
Companys process effectiveness
Companys delivery of products to customers on time and
in the right place and quantity
Companys profitability
Companys financial results
Companys net profit margin
Companys sales growth during the last three years
Companys cash flow
Companys market growth during the last three years
Code
V027
V028
V029
V030
V031
V032
V033
V034
V035
V036
V037
Table AI.
About the authors

Dr Dimitrios Kafetzopoulos, MSc, PhD is a Research Assistant in the Department of Business
Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises in the University of Patras, Greece. He
received a PhD in Quality Management at the University of Ioannina, Greece, in 2011. He has
dealt with issues of Management and his research interests include: Food Safety, Quality
Management, Operational Management, Business Performance, Competitiveness, Innovation and
Human Resource Management. Dr Dimitrios Kafetzopoulos is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: dimkafe@yahoo.gr
Dr Evangelos Psomas, PhD is a Research Assistant in the Department of Business
Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises in the University of Patras, Greece. He
received a PhD in Total Quality Management at the University of Ioannina, Greece, in 2008. He
has dealt with issues of Management and Marketing and has worked as a Teaching Assistant in
the University of Ioannina and Technological Educational Institute of Epirus. His research
interests include: Total Quality Management, Quality Assurance, Food Safety Management,
Human Resource Management, Supply Chain Management, Agribusiness and Food Marketing.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The Impact of Innovation Capability On The Performance of Manufacturing Companies - The Greek Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Innovation Capability On The Performance of Manufacturing Companies - The Greek Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

The impact of innovation capability on the performance of manufacturing

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of

The impact of innovation

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Received 6 December 2012

The Greek case

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

relationship between the innovation dimensions and various aspects of a firms

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Martinez-Costa and Martinez-Lorente, 2008). Many studies conceptualize innovation

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

items of Garvins quality dimensions (performance, reliability, durability, perceived

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

products (Evangelista and Vezzani, 2010). Process innovation has a greater

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Absolute fit indices

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

factors (the innovation dimensions). In the second-order factor model, it is hypothesized

4.2 Construct validity of firm performance dimensions

Average variance extracteda

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Average variance extracteda

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

0.759 0.873 0.908 0.765

the variation in financial performance can be explained only by operational performance.

1. Innovation capabilityoperational performance

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Limitations and future research recommendations

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Forsman, H. (2011), Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises.

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded by Universidad de Antioquia At 16:14 23 March 2015 (PT)

About the authors

You might also like