SpringerLink
Log in

Does digitalization improve innovation performance of enterprises?—Evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises survey

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The deep integration of the new generation of information technology and the real economy provides a new impetus to world economic growth. How manufacturing enterprises, as important microeconomic units, achieve high-quality development through digitalization has drawn much attention from scholars. This article uses the 2012 World Bank survey data of Chinese manufacturing companies to reveal the effect and mechanism of digitalization on innovation performance. This paper suggests that (1) the increasing degree of firms’ digitalization significantly promotes the consumers’ acceptance for corporate innovation; (2) digitalization can bring inclusive contributions to corporate innovation performance; (3) exploitative innovation and exploratory innovation play a partial mediating role in digitalization and innovation performance, while their mechanisms are quite different: The positive mediating effect of exploratory innovation neutralizes the negative suppressing effect of exploitative innovation, and the former one is the main driving force for realizing positive innovation performance. Collectively, these findings provide a theory-based understanding of the impacts of digitalization, while also guiding what executives should expect from the use of rapidly emerging digital technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Digital technologies are considered the driving force for the digital economy. Currently, many scholars also express “digital technology” equally through “the new generation of information technologies” and “information and communication technology (ICT).” Without special explanation, the new generation of digital technology, the new generation of information technology, information and communication technology (ICT) is used as a synonymous alternative in this paper.

  2. In the process of innovation and entrepreneurship, digital technology can provide the carrying capacity of related behaviors for specific subjects or specific situations.

  3. Sampling Region: Bei**g, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Foshan, Dongguan, Shijiazhuang, Hefei, Tangshan, Zhengzhou, Luoyang, Wuhan, Nan**g, Wuxi, Suzhou, Nantong, Shenyang, Dalian, **an, Qingdao, Yantai, Shanghai, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Ningbo, and Wenzhou.

  4. The firm established in 2011 has a natural 0 age, all values are added by 1, and then the natural logarithm is taken.

  5. ERP (enterprise resource planning): Record and allocate human, material, and financial resources, and share real-time internal data across regions and departments. SCM (supply chain management): use data to plan, schedule, allocate, control and utilize materials, funds, information, and other resources in the supply chain. CRM (customer relationship management): Exchange products, services and after-sales information with customers. Provide personalized and customized products and services through customer data.

  6. EDI (electronic data interchange): Exchange of business data between companies (B2B) in a standard format.

  7. The famous quote by Robert Solow (1987) “You can see the computer age everywhere except in the productivity statistics.”.

References

  1. Cui AS, Cui AS, Wu F, Wu F (2016) Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: antecedents and impact of customer involvement on new product performance. J Acad Market Sci 44(4):516–538

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Li L, Su F, Zhang W, Mao JY (2018) Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: a capability perspective. Inf Syst J (Oxford, England) 28(6):1129–1157

    Google Scholar 

  3. Venkatraman N (1994) It enabled business transformation : from automation to business scope redefinition. Sloan Manag Rev 35(2):73–87

    Google Scholar 

  4. Henfridsson O, Nandhakumar J, Scarbrough H, Panourgias N (2018) Recombination in the open-ended value landscape of digital innovation. Inform Organ-Uk 28(2):89–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ciriello RF, Richter A, Schwabe G (2018) Digital innovation. Bus Inform. Syst Eng 60(6):563–569

    Google Scholar 

  6. Yoo Y, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organ Sci 23(5):1398–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hemphill D (1996) Flexibility, innovation, and collaboration A. regional view of community-based organizations in adult education. Adult Learn 7(6):21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhao Y, Li Y, Lee SH, Bo Chen L (2011) Entrepreneurial orientation, organizational learning, and performance: evidence from China. Entrep Theory Pract 35(2):293–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Helena G, Georg VK, Sebastian S (2013) How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strat Manag J 34(9):1134–1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. West J, Bogers M (2014) Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation: leveraging external sources of innovation. J Prod Innov Manag 31(4):814–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2002) Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Admin Sci Quart 47(4):676–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vial G (2019) Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. J Strateg Inf Syst 28(2):118–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Svahn F, Mathiassen L, Lindgren R (2017) Embracing digital innovation in incumbent firms: how volvo cars managed competing concerns. Mis Quart 41(1):239–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Young** Y, Ola H, Kalle L (2010) Research commentary-the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Inform Syst Res 21(4):724–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ogawa S, Piller FT (2006) Reducing the risks of new product development. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 47(2):65–71

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lilien GL, Morrison PD, Searls K, Sonnack M, Hippel EV (2002) Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Manag Sci 48(8):1042–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manag 34(3):375–409

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cao X, Zhang X, ** Y (2011) Ambidextrous organization in harmony: a multi-case exploration of the value of He**e management theory. Chin Manag Stud 5(2):146–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wu L, Hitt L, Lou B (2019) Data analytics, innovation, and firm productivity. Manag Sci 66(5):2017–2039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wu L, Lou B, Hitt L (2019) Data analytics supports decentralized innovation. Manag Sci 65(10):4863–4877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bertschek I, Cerquera D, Klein GJ (2013) More bits – more bucks? Measuring the Impact of Broadband Internet on Firm Performance. Inf Econ Policy 25(3):190–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Müller O, Fay M, Vom Brocke J (2018) The effect of big data and analytics on firm performance: an econometric analysis considering industry characteristics. J Manag Inform Syst 35(2):488–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mcafee A, Brynjolfsson E (2012) Big data: the management revolution. Harvard Bus Rev 90(10):60

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chen DQ, Preston DS, Swink M (2015) How the use of big data analytics affects value creation in supply chain management. J Manag Inform Syst 32(4):4–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bharadwaj A (2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. Manag Inf Syst Q 24(1):169–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bloom N, Van Reenen J (2007) Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Q J Econ 122(4):1351–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brynjolfsson E, Rock D, Syverson C (2017) Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: a clash of expectations and statistics. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24001. Accessed November 2017

  28. Mauerhoefer T, Strese S, Brettel M (2017) The impact of information technology on new product development performance. J Prod Innov Manag 34(6):719–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kawakami T, Barczak G, Durmuşoğlu SS (2015) Information technology tools in new product development: the impact of complementary resources: information technology tools in new product development. J Prod Innov Manag 32(4):622–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. He Z, Wong PK (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15(4):481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Klein RW, Vella F (2005) Estimating a class of triangular simultaneous equations models without exclusion restrictions. J Econ 154(2):154–164

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewbel A (2012) Using Heteroscedasticity to identify and estimate mismeasured and endogenous regressor models. J Bus Econ Stat 30(1):67–80

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Hayes DC, Hunton JE, Reck JL (2001) Market reaction to ERP implementation announcements. J Inf Syst 15(1):3–18

    Google Scholar 

  34. Becker W, Dietz J (2004) R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms–evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Res Policy 33(2):209–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Birgit A, Tobias S (2008) Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation—happy together? Rev Ind Organ 33(1):41–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cho Y, Lee J, Kim T (2007) The impact of ICT investment and energy price on industrial electricity demand: dynamic growth model approach. Energy Policy 35(9):4730–4738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bernstein R, Madlener R (2010) Impact of disaggregated ICT capital on electricity intensity in European manufacturing. Appl Econ Lett 17(17):1691–1695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wen Z, Marsh HW, Hau K (2010) Structural equation models of latent interactions: an appropriate standardized solution and its scale-free properties. Struct Equ Model 17(1):1–22

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Poverty Reduction Center in China, No.1 North Street, Taiyanggong, Bei**g, 100028, China

    Huanhuan Liu

Authors
  1. Huanhuan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huanhuan Liu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, H. Does digitalization improve innovation performance of enterprises?—Evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises survey. Pers Ubiquit Comput (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-024-01796-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-024-01796-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation