SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 10
Download to read offline
Standardization efforts: The relationship between knowledge
dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes
Zongjie Xie a,n
, Jeremy Hall b
, Ian P. McCarthy c
, Martin Skitmore d
, Liyin Shen a
a
School of Construction Management and Real Estate, International Research Centre for Sustainable Built Environment, Chongqing University, 174
Shazhengjie, Chongqing, 400030 PR China
b
Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK
c
Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6
d
Faculty of Science and Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 September 2014
Received in revised form
2 December 2015
Accepted 16 December 2015
Available online 24 December 2015
Keywords:
Standardization effort
Search process
Innovation
Knowledge
Construction industry
a b s t r a c t
We explore how a standardization effort (i.e., when a firm pursues standards to further innovation)
involves different search processes for knowledge and innovation outcomes. Using an inductive case
study of Vanke, a leading Chinese property developer, we show how varying degrees of knowledge
complexity and codification combine to produce a typology of four types of search process: active, in-
tegrative, decentralized and passive, resulting in four types of innovation outcome: modular, radical, in-
cremental and architectural. We argue that when the standardization effort in a firm involves highly
codified knowledge, incremental and architectural innovation outcomes are fostered, while modular and
radical innovations are hindered. We discuss how standardization efforts can result in a second-order
innovation capability, and conclude by calling for comparative research in other settings to understand
how standardization efforts can be suited to different types of search process in different industry
contexts.
& 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction
This paper focuses on how a firm's standardization efforts im-
pact its knowledge search processes, and the resulting innovation
outcomes. Standardization is the process of developing and im-
plementing specifications based on the consensus of the views of
firms, users, interest groups and governments (Sherif, 2006;
Saltzman et al., 2008). The resulting standards are intended to
promote compatibility, interoperability and quality. An early ex-
ample of standardization is the regulation of the sizes of the
threads that we find on nuts, bolts and screws, which was
achieved by the development of a screw-cutting lathe that could
repeatedly produce these products to specific standards with
universal applications.
Standards can be developed and governed by Standards De-
velopment Organizations (SDO) or independently, for example, by
firms who have a first mover or dominant position in the market
(Utterback, 1996). When a firm pursues a standard to produce an
innovation outcome, this what we call a ‘standardization effort'.
More specifically, a standardization effort is when a firm pursues a
leadership role in developing standards to further innovation. For
example, Google followed a standardization effort when acquiring
and developing the innovations for its mobile operating system,
Android (Grøtnes, 2009).
Scholars have argued that standardization has a significant
impact on the creation and diffusion of innovations (Dolfsma and
Seo, 2013; Grøtnes, 2009; Lecocq and Demil, 2006; Tassey, 2000;
Wrighta et al., 2012). However, prior research on the relationship
between standardization and innovation remains inconsistent. For
example, some studies have proposed a positive relationship
(Rysman and Simcoe, 2008), where standardization fosters the
diffusion of innovation (Hashem and Tann, 2007) and changes
industrial structures (Lecocq and Demil, 2006), whereas others
have argued that it constrains innovation, by inhibiting creativity
(Hamel, 2006) and postponing the gestation period between in-
vention and successful commercialization (Hill and Rothaermel,
2003). A number of studies have noted this unclear relationship
between innovation and standardization (Gilson et al., 2005; Kano,
2000; Wrighta et al., 2012; Yoo et al., 2005). In one case,
Damanpour (1991) argues that standardization can establish
managerial control when implementing innovation in a
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation
Technovation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.12.002
0166-4972/& 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zjxie@cqu.edu.cn (Z. Xie),
jeremy.hall@nottingham.ac.uk (J. Hall), ian_mccarth@sfu.ca (I.P. McCarthy),
rm.skitmore@qut.edu.au (M. Skitmore), shenliyin@cqu.edu.cn (L. Shen).
Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–78
manufacturing context, but it might also constrain the producer–
client relationship in a service context. Given such inconsistencies,
better understanding the inter-play and relationship between
standardization and innovation is an important research
opportunity.
In response, this study aims to improve our understanding of
how the search for knowledge associated with a firm's standar-
dization effort can result in more effective innovation manage-
ment. According to Nelson and Winter (1982), understanding how
firms search for knowledge helps to explain innovative behavior, a
perspective that has since been widely applied within the in-
novation discourse (Chiang and Hung, 2010; Cillo and Verona,
2008; Fabrizio, 2009; Laursen and Salter, 2004; Mahdi, 2003). For
example, Rosenkopf and Nerkar (2001) explored how a local
search for solutions, using current knowledge, contrasts with
distant search, or what Rosenkopf and Almeida (2003) call ex-
plorative learning. Katila and Ahuja (2002) focused on search
depth (how deeply existing knowledge is reused) and search scope
(how widely new knowledge is explored), while Greve (2003)
investigated problematic search caused by low performance and
slack search caused by excess resources.
In addition to how variations in search scope can impact in-
novation, studies have also highlighted the importance of different
approaches to search. Broadcast search is suited to external solvers
self-selecting themselves to create a solution (Jeppesen and
Lakhani, 2010). In contrast ‘pyramiding’, a search process based
upon the view that appropriate experts will know other appro-
priate experts, is used for identifying individuals who have more
of a given attribute by “moving up to the pyramid” (Hippel et al.,
2009:1398). Furthermore, search processes can vary in terms of
the extent to which alliance partners jointly search for new
knowledge across different knowledge domains (Zack, 1999) or
use search processes to selectively target knowledge sources from
product market, science and suppliers (McCarthy et al., 2006;
Nicholson and Sahay, 2004).
We present our arguments in four sections. First, we review the
literature on standardization and innovation to identify how dif-
ferent dimensions of knowledge, embedded in the standardization
effort, can impact different types of innovation outcome (see
Fig. 1). We also examine and illustrate the potential relationships
between the different dimensions of knowledge, search processes
and innovation outcomes involved in a standardization effort.
Second, to investigate and illustrate the relationships between
these elements of a standardization effort, we present a case study
on Vanke Co., Ltd. (Vanke), the largest residential property de-
veloper in China. For almost 16 years, Vanke has undertaken a
standardization effort in housing design and construction. This
resulted in standards and innovations for mass off-site fabrication
(referred to as ‘housing industrialization’), which have since been
adopted by the Chinese construction industry and influenced re-
lated Chinese government policies. Third, we discuss the case
findings and present a typology of four types of search process:
active, integrative, decentralized and passive, along with four dif-
ferent types of innovation outcome: modular, radical, incremental
and architectural. Finally, we conclude the paper by discussing
theoretical and practical implications of our research.
2. Standardization and innovation in management research
Looking across the literature that explores the relationship
between standardization and innovation, we identify two recur-
ring main themes – knowledge embedded in standardization and
types of innovation outcome (see Table 1). In this section we
specifically discuss knowledge in the context of a firm's standar-
dization effort. In addition, we discuss innovation from the per-
spective of searching for knowledge during a standardization ef-
fort. Although widely acknowledged as a key to understanding
innovative behavior, search is only alluded to in the standardiza-
tion discourse. The dearth of research in this area is reflected in its
absence from our literature summary table (Table 1).
Fig. 1. Standardization efforts and the relationship between knowledge dimen-
sions, search processes and innovation outcomes.
Table 1
Standardization and innovation in management research.
Example study Dimensions of knowledge embedded in a firm's standar-
dization effort
Types of innovation outcome
Tassey (2000) High codification, high complexity Modular/architectural/incremental/radical
Kano (2000) High or low codification, high complexity Systematic/stand-alone
Tether et al. (2001) High codification, high complexity Service/process
Yoo et al. (2005) High or low codification, high complexity Diffusion/system/process
Rysman and Simcoe (2008) High codification, high complexity Diffusion/cumulative
Leiponen (2008) High or low codification, high complexity No classification
Grøtnes (2009) High or low codification, high complexity Outside-in/inside-out/coupled process
Viardot (2010) High or low codification, high complexity Incremental/radical
Wrighta et al. (2012) High codification, high or low complexity Incremental/radical management innovation
Narayanana and Chen (2012) High or low codification, high complexity Modular/architectural/incremental/radical/product/process/institu-
tional/industrial/technological
Hytönen et al. (2013) High or low codification, high complexity No classification
Dolfsma and Seo (2013) High codification, high complexity Discrete/cumulative
Gao et al. (2014) High or low codification, high complexity Diffusion/capability
Groesser (2014) High or low codification, high complexity System/diffusion/incremental
Lopez-Berzosa and Gawer (2014) High codification, high complexity Collective innovation
Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–7870
2.1. Knowledge embedded in a firm's standardization effort
Standardization is a deliberate attempt by an organization to
develop, ratify and implement standards among stakeholders (Gao
et al., 2014). Standardization can be led by a Standards Develop-
ment Organization (SDO), such as the American Society of Me-
chanical Engineers (ASME) that oversees standards for mechanical
components and devices. It can also be led by individual firms
pursuing a standard for their products or processes and related
innovations. This is called a ‘standardization effort’. For example,
Google developed the Android operating system for mobile tele-
communication devices (Grøtnes, 2009), and management and
accounting consultancies have, over time, developed standardized
agendas and methods used within their industry (Wrighta et al.,
2012).
Table 1 presents that research on standardization and innova-
tion has employed two dimensions of knowledge to characterize
the processes: codification and complexity. Codification refers to
the extent to which knowledge can be documented, transferred or
shared (Zack, 1999). The life cycles of standardization (Tether et al.,
2001) and technological change (Anderson and Tushman, 1990)
help explain how the level of knowledge codification can vary in
standardization. Non-codified knowledge usually emerges at ear-
lier stages of standardization when technological uncertainties,
trials, and competition among various competing technologies are
common. The early stage of a standardization effort can end with
the emergence of, for example, a dominant design (Anderson and
Tushman, 1990) and the non-codified knowledge partially trans-
forms to codified knowledge when the industry standard becomes
established.
Although studies define standardization and standards differ-
ently, they rarely emphasize this distinction, while some studies
treat the two terms synonymously. For example, Tassey
(2000:588) explains that “standardization represents a codifica-
tion of an element of an industry's technology or simply some
information relevant to the conduct of economic activity”, while
standards are “a set of specifications to which all elements of
products, processes, formats, or procedures under its jurisdiction
must conform”. These definitions assume that standardization is a
knowledge codification process, to assist understanding of the
innovations and promote the efficiency of economic activity,
especially in highly skilled settings (Bénézech et al., 2001).
We argue that merely focusing on codified knowledge under-
estimates the role of the capabilities and learning mechanisms
accumulated from non-codified knowledge embedded in stan-
dardization. Such mechanisms can be developed as part of the
process of developing and implementing a standard (Zollo and
Winter, 2002), but tend to be neglected in the knowledge codifi-
cation process of standardization. In technology industries, for
example, the processes of standardization include providing
compatible technology, creating a supportive network, developing
a dominant brand name, going global, minimizing production cost
and investing more than the competitors (Viardot, 2010). In our
view, studies have tended to focus merely on the codified
knowledge i.e., the process outcome, at the expense of non-codi-
fied knowledge that is embedded in the process of standardiza-
tion. By ‘embedded’ we mean that the knowledge resides in the
“organizing principles, routines and standard operating proce-
dures” (Nicholson and Sahay, 2004:337) necessary for the stan-
dardization effort.
The second dimension of knowledge listed in Table 1 is
knowledge complexity, which is the extent to which knowledge
can flow and be used independently between people or subunits
of firms (Teece, 1986; Winter, 1987). To be understood and used,
knowledge with high complexity requires some other knowledge
or additional processing. Knowledge with low complexity is stand-
alone and can be more easily transferred and used. The literature
emphasizes the importance of knowledge complexity in a firm's
standardization effort, but fails to delineate how it impacts the
type of innovation outcome that is produced.
Some studies suggest that high knowledge complexity is cen-
tral to standardization (Rysman and Simcoe, 2008; Tassey, 2000;
Tether et al., 2001). For example, Yoo et al. (2005) argue that the
standardization and innovation in broadband mobile services is
driven by the need to integrate complex and diverse technological
knowledge. The literature moreover suggests that knowledge
embedded in standardization may be composed of different de-
grees of complexity. For example, knowledge will likely be less
complex when fewer stakeholders are involved, such as a ‘bespoke
(one-off, custom-made) service' (Tether et al., 2001), and more
complex when the stakeholders involved have different techno-
logical, social and economic backgrounds or interests (Yoo et al.,
2005). Knowledge complexity is likely to be exacerbated when
sustainable development issues are driving innovation (Matos and
Hall, 2007; Zollo and Winter, 2002) as is the case in the con-
struction industry (discussed below).
Narayanana and Chen (2012) reveal, implicitly, that knowledge
complexity in standardization has the potential to influence ar-
chitectural innovation at the community level (i.e., competing
firms and their technological platforms) and modular innovation
within the product offerings. These types of innovation come from
a classification (modular, radical, incremental and architectural)
based on the extent to which the innovation involves new inter-
faces between components and or involves new components alone
(Henderson and Clark, 1990). These types of innovation are re-
levant to the issue of knowledge complexity in standardization
which usually determines the interfaces that links components in
a product. For example, Kleinsmann et al. (2010) identified dif-
ferent collaborative mechanisms within four types of interface
from company, project and actor levels in the context of knowl-
edge complexity. Standards provide opportunities for changes in
the way in which the component knowledge are linked together,
while leaving the core component knowledge untouched (Hen-
derson and Clark, 1990).
2.2. Standardization efforts from a search perspective
As discussed above, the standardization studies listed in Table 1
have placed little emphasis on search processes. This is somewhat
surprising given that a key aspect of innovation is that it involves
the search for and transfer of new knowledge (Rogers, 2003), or
recombining existing ideas or technologies (Schumpeter, 1934).
Understanding the search for knowledge and how it is conducted
has been recognized as crucial for understanding the innovation
process (Miller et al., 2007; Rogers, 2003; Tsai, 2001), as knowl-
edge provides the foundation for learning (Cohen and Lenvinth,
1990; Shenkar and Li, 1999). Search is central to innovation and
standardization efforts. Drawing on the work of Nelson and Winter
(1982), we define search in these contexts as an organization's
problem-solving activities that involve the creation and re-
combination of technological knowledge.
We propose that a search perspective linked to the dimensions
of technological knowledge can help reconcile the inconsistencies
in the literature focused on standardization and innovation. Dif-
ferent types of search activity have been found to influence
whether a firm innovates incrementally or radically. For example,
Chiang and Hung (2010) argue that search depth could facilitate
incremental innovation performance while search scope enhances
radical innovation. The reason is that the knowledge features, for
example the age of knowledge (Katila and Ahuja, 2002) and
learning mechanisms associated with diverse search activities,
tend to differ (March, 1991; Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 2001; Chiang
Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–78 71
and Hung, 2010), leading to varying innovation performances.
3. Methods
A case study of a firm that was highly successfully in using
standards to innovate effort can advance our understanding of
standardization efforts and the role of search processes. Conse-
quently, we now describe our methodology and explain why and
how we conducted the case study of Vanke. We also explain our
approach to data collection and we identified, synthesized and
illustrates the different knowledge dimensions, search processes
and innovation outcomes in Vanke's standardization effort.
3.1. Case context and selection
We selected the Chinese building sector because it has under-
gone a substantial transition, with new approaches to improving
energy efficiency and the adoption of information and commu-
nication technologies. Although traditionally the building sector
has not been considered innovation-intensive, there have been
recent measures adopted to improve innovative practices through
standards (Saltzman et al., 2008).
The Chinese building sector is an interesting and important
industry in terms of the need to innovate, as it accounts for almost
a third of China's total energy consumption. Such demands are
exacerbated by the sheer scale of China's economy and its rapid
urbanization. The percentage of the population living in urban
areas is expected to increase from 36% in 2000 to an estimated 50%
by 2020 (Chen and Shu, 2012). Indeed, an additional 2 billion
square meters of newly constructed buildings have been added
yearly in China over the last 10 years. Existing buildings currently
account for around 40 billion square meters in area, around 95% of
them failing to meet the existing requirements for energy-efficient
buildings (Kleinsmann et al., 2010).
The Chinese government has developed and announced sets of
standards to help increase innovative construction. For example, it
has encouraged the implementation of Building Information
Model (BIM) technology in the life cycle of buildings, which in-
cludes design, construction and operations standards. Local gov-
ernments have also prepared their own standards for im-
plementing BIM. The Chinese government also announced the
standard for energy efficient building assessment (GB/T 50668-
2011) in 2011, for building an energy-efficient community. Com-
panies that meet the standard can gain tax reductions and ex-
emptions from the government. The standard outlines basic as-
sessment requirements and different classification levels for
building systems including architectural planning, building en-
velope, HVAC (Heating, Ventilating and Air Condition), water
supply and drainage, power supply and lighting, indoor environ-
ment and operation and the management of buildings both re-
sidential and public. To keep pace with and satisfy the changing
requirements in these areas of building design and construction,
firms in the Chinese building sector have had to deliver innovative
responses of the right type and at the appropriate speed. However,
while most innovation in this sector has been driven by standar-
dization efforts, little is known about the efficacy of such
innovations.
Following Siggelkow (2007), we chose Vanke, one of China's
largest property developers, as our case for three reasons. First,
Vanke is the leading Chinese company for ‘housing industrializa-
tion', their long-term strategy since 1999. Housing industrializa-
tion promotes mass off-site prefabrication instead of conventional
on-site construction methods. Standardization is a basic premise
of housing industrialization. For example, building components
have to be standardized to facilitate design, mass off-site
prefabrication and assembly on the construction site. Housing
industrialization thus not only changes the way to build, it also
requires a standardization effort that changes the relationship
between the stakeholders involved in the building sector supply
chain. These changes may have a substantial impact on other
sectors because the building industry has close relationships with
for example, the steel industry, forestry, electrical appliance in-
dustry, water treatment and even the medical industry.
Second, to foster housing industrialization, Vanke has had to
initially overcome many disadvantages. These included the high
costs of housing industrialization building methods compared
with those of conventional building methods, outdated construc-
tion technologies and lack of capital, supportive government po-
licies and skilled labor in the building sector. Currently, housing
industrialization has been accepted by the Chinese government
and welcomed by industry. Over the past 16 years, Vanke has thus
been at the forefront of developing standards for housing in-
dustrialization, providing us with a useful opportunity to explore
this phenomenon in the Chinese building sector.
Third, the large scale and established industry presence of
Vanke is important as it represents a large part of the sector's
standardization effort. Vanke is one of the largest real estate de-
velopers in China. In 2012, it had approximately 22 billion US
dollars of sales revenue (gross) and 31,019 employees, and had
developed 14.33 million square meters of building work. The large
scale of Vanke helps buffer the company from external contingent
factors such as fiscal policies and economic changes to firms,
which can disrupt smaller developers. In addition, Vanke has a
relatively long history in the Chinese building sector, having
launched its business in 1984. Its 30 years of constant operation
thus allows us to investigate the formation and dynamics of the
capabilities developed by the company.
3.2. Data categories and collection
To develop a framework to understand a firm's standardization
effort, we sought data regarding the relationship between
knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation out-
comes. Following guidelines for collecting case data by Eisenhardt
(1989) and Yin (2003), we categorised these elements. For ex-
ample, in terms of knowledge dimensions the degree of codifica-
tion and complexity (low versus high in each case), while relative,
can be substantiated. We followed a similar approach for collect-
ing data on different search processes and types of innovation. The
final four categories and twelve sub-categories of data are pre-
sented in Table 2.
We collected data for this study from both archival sources and
interviews. The archives included annual company reports, cor-
porate social responsibility reports, scholarly journals, internal
company documents (reports and presentations), national stan-
dards, news papers and the autobiographies and other writings of
Shi Wang, the founder and current chairman of Vanke. Scholarly
journal articles focused on Vanke were obtained from sources such
Table 2
Categories and sub-categories of data coding.
Categories (4) Subcategories (12)
Knowledge Di-
mensions
(KD)
Low com-
plexity high
codification
(LH)
High com-
plexity high
codification
(HH)
Low com-
plexity low
codification
(LL)
High com-
plexity low
codification
(HL)
Search Process
(SS)
Search pro-
cess of LH
Search pro-
cess of HH
Search pro-
cess of LL
Search pro-
cess of HL
Innovation
Type (IT)
Incremental Architectural Modular Radical
Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–7872
as the China National Knowledge Index (CNKI). Autobiographies of
the current chairman of Vanke included Wang (2012a, 2012b,
2013, 2014a, 2014b).
We conducted 28 interviews (telephone and face-to-face) with
project and procurement managers, customer service and R&D
staff, accounting department representatives and administrators
working nationwide at Vanke. We also interviewed government
officials and researchers. The interviews lasted between twenty
minutes and one and a half hours. We also used additional open-
ended questionnaires after the first round of interviews. All in-
terviews were conducted between April 2014 and March 2015.
3.3. Data coding and analysis
The collected data were coded following guidelines for quali-
tative content analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989; Kohlbacher, 2006). De-
tailed write-ups of the archival and interview data were produced
to ensure intimate familiarity with the case. The data were then
sorted into the 4 categories and 12 sub-categories of the dimen-
sions of knowledge, search process and innovation outcome, in
effect making them variables in our study. This allowed us to make
inferences, verifications and a theory guided analysis of the data.
Table 3 provides examples of the data coding.
Further tables were used to help analyse cross-sectional data
and to sequence and organize longitudinal data. The longitudinal
data were collected to increase the internal validity of the case
study. The data were also divided by source and the patterns that
emerged were analysed and compared with those from the in-
terviews. When both were consistent, the findings were con-
sidered to be stronger and better grounded. When evidence from
the two sources conflicted, the evidence was reconciled by either
probing the difference or by collecting additional data. For ex-
ample, archival data indicated that Vanke planned to apply
housing industrialization to all of its projects by 2014. However,
interview data from Chongqing indicated that only one project
used the technologies of housing industrialization. Further data
verified that Vanke had applied different levels of standardization
and innovation in different districts, depending on the availability
of supporting resources.
4. Findings and typology
The findings in this study suggest that a standardization effort
is a complex phenomenon shaped by multiple search processes for
different dimensions of knowledge and innovation outcomes. This
is depicted in a theoretical framework (see Fig. 2) that shows how
the two proposed dimensions of knowledge (codification and
complexity) combine to produce a typology of four types of search
(active, integrative, decentralized and passive) and four types of
innovation outcome (modular, radical, incremental and archi-
tectural). We now validate and illustrate the typology using the
case findings and drawing upon previous research on innovation
and standardization.
4.1. Decentralized search and incremental innovations
The first type of search and related innovation outcome we
discuss occurs when the knowledge in a standardization effort is
of low complexity and is highly codified. This creates what we
refer to as decentralized search and results in incremental innova-
tion outcomes. Decentralized search means that the search is not
centrally coordinated by a unit in the organization. The search is
autonomously led by different individuals and units, each of which
may be tracking a specific aspect of the environment, such as
market demand, competitor actions, product and technological
innovation, and regulatory updates (McCarthy et al., 2010; Daft
and Weick, 1984). Decentralized search is suitable for low com-
plexity knowledge especially as the search is typically conducted
and controlled by individuals, especially at the executive level
(Daft et al., 1988). These individuals serve as the strategic scanning
interface between the organization and the external environment.
The trip to Brazil's Amazon River Basin in 2008 made by Van-
ke's CEO (Shi Wang) is an example decentralized search. The
search was not undertaken by a team of analysts. Only Shi Wang
was involved as the knowledge complexity was low. The knowl-
edge that was acquired was also highly codified in that it could be
seen, documented and presented by an individual – it is not rou-
tinized and does not involve many interactions within a firm. The
resulting innovations are typically incremental and are supposed
to provide developmental plasticity or flexibility to the internal
and external environments, improving the ability to value external
Table 3
Examples of data coding.
Coding category Example
Low complexity high codification (LH) Knowledge embedded in Shi Wang's trip to Brazil's Amazon River Basin in July, 2008
Search process of LH Information seeking by Shi Wang that a large number of timbers in this area were transported to China and some of them were
used on construction sites
Incremental innovation Vanke formed a new procurement policy and joined the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN) in 2011
High complexity high codification (HH) Knowledge embedded in the application for the platinum certification of LEED
Search process of HH Vanke invited LEED consultants to participate in the whole process of LEED application and work with partners to conduct and
prepare relevant documents
Architectural innovation The combination of green technology with design, construction, material supply and building operation
Low complexity low codification (LL) Knowledge embedded in the R&D center of housing industrialization
Search process of LL In addition to investing millions of $US encouraging trial and error to develop standards of housing industrialization, Vanke
sent teams overseas to learn, gain experience and become familiar with technologies. More importantly, Vanke had to face
suspicious opinions arising from peers on doing so. This is because some people including governors, academics and practi-
tioners were not optimistic about the future of housing industrialization in China due to cheap labor, outdated technologies in
this sector and lacking of support resources for housing industrialization
Modular innovation Vanke applied the standards of housing industrialization in some projects where supporting resources are sufficient
High complexity low codification (HL) Knowledge embedded in processes that consistently seek to be innovative, sustainable and aligned with Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR)
Search process of HL An integrative search involves search processes interchanging or simultaneously developing a decentralized search, a passive
search and an active search. Vanke took a decentralized, passive search to strategically transition by collaborating with high-
tech companies such as Baidu, Xiaomi and Tecent, to develop customized products. Vanke also adopted a passive search to
enlarge housing industrialization standards to products concerned with social welfare, by exploiting current knowledge
Radical innovation The dynamic capabilities developed from an integrative search have helped Vanke maintain a competitive advantage in the
building sector for years
Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–78 73
knowledge. These incremental innovations are minor improve-
ments that build on incumbent knowledge (Dewar and Dutton,
1986).
In the case of Shi Wang's trip to the Amazon River Basin, the
search and knowledge resulted in Vanke becoming a member of
the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN) whose aims are to
eliminate illegal logging and improve forest management. This
helped Vanke identify societal concerns about its practices and
pioneer its culture of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). For
example, a new procurement policy was adopted to restrict use of
non-renewable forest resources for Vanke's operations. The
adoption of the procurement policy was relatively straightforward
(i.e., an incremental innovation) as it did not require major chan-
ges to operational units. The process of forming and applying the
procurement policy and joining GFTN diversified Vanke's goal of
improving CSR and the sustainability of their operations, while
also building the company's flexibility to adapt to the external
environment.
4.2. Passive search and architectural innovations
The second type of search and innovation outcome we discuss
occurs when the knowledge in a standardization effort is highly
complex and highly codified. This creates what we refer to as
passive search and results in architectural innovation outcomes. By
passive we mean a situation where a firm takes whatever in-
formation comes its way, which can result in knowledge discovery
and transfer efficiencies. However, the potential to receive novel
ideas that underlie major solutions tends to be reduced by simply
waiting for knowledge to arrive. This is because passive search has
inertia and is satisficing in nature i.e., once an organization has
received information to meet its requirements, waiting for further
and better alternatives is considered time-consuming (March,
1991).
Highly complex knowledge in a standardization effort will
likely require other complementary knowledge and additional
processing to be understood. Therefore, the standardization effort
also has to acquire and assimilate this additional knowledge often
drawing upon different organizational subunits and external
partners. To help mitigate the risk and costs of this complexity,
codifying that knowledge is a common approach. Together these
factors support a standardization effort suited to producing ar-
chitectural innovations. This is because an architectural innovation
changes the way in which the components of knowledge are
linked together, while leaving the core knowledge untouched
(Henderson and Clark, 1990). The capabilities for an architectural
innovation include the ability to reconfigure the current structure
of a system or to enlarge the current system by taking in new
subsystems (Yoo et al., 2005).
An example of a passive search and architectural innovation
outcome by Vanke is their adoption of Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED), a third-party certification scheme
for assessing green building. LEED measures the environmental
performance of various aspects of construction, such as the de-
velopment of sustainable architectural designs, water efficiency,
energy, materials and resource use, emissions and indoor en-
vironmental quality. Adopting LEED certification is an architectural
innovation as it requires the use of complex interrelated knowl-
edge and coordination of capabilities with suppliers to attain.
According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), this typi-
cally involves a specified application procedure, and can be com-
municated through documentation (high codification). Vanke in-
vited LEED consultants to participate during the application pro-
cedure and cooperated with partners such as designers and con-
struction firms, preparing relevant documents on certification of
qualification, construction methods, energy saving, recyclable
material, etc.
4.3. Active search and modular innovations
The third type of search and innovation outcome in our ty-
pology is when the knowledge dimensions have low complexity
and low codification. This results in an active search and modular
innovation. In contrast to passive search, active search involves
allocating resources to vigorously explore, test and shape the en-
vironment (Daft et al., 1988). An active search includes sending
agents to places and events in the environment (Smith et al., 2010)
and engaging in trial and error learning (Daft and Weick, 1984).
This type of search suits low complexity knowledge as it is exists
independently outside a firm's boundary and requires little in-
tegration the firm's existing knowledge (Beckert, 1999). Also, low
codified knowledge is suited to experiential learning methods that
involve interacting with the environment (Kamp et al., 2004). This
is essential for acquiring, forming and applying such knowledge.
An example of active search by Vanke is when it established an
R&D center in 1999 to develop standards for building components
in China. To accumulate knowledge and technologies for housing
industrialization, Vanke sent teams of researchers overseas
(especially to Japan) to find and internalize the acquired knowl-
edge by working with researchers at partner organizations. Vanke
has invested millions of U.S. dollars annually in these learning
secondments and the R&D center.
Active search was an important mechanism for Vanke in
overcoming skepticism to its housing industrialization strategy.
There was skepticism from the Chinese government and from
Vanke's peers in the building sector that this approach might not
be suitable for China due to availability of inexpensive, low skilled
labor suitable for its outdated construction technologies. Vanke's
active search sought innovations and standards that would de-
monstrate the viability of the strategy and overcome the skepti-
cism. In this respect, an active search tends to be an action or-
iented and self-regulating process that helps ensure the firm's
standardization effort suits external conditions.
The learning from active search typically remains in the teams
or sub-units of the firm that undertake the search. Consequently,
at the product level this learning promotes modular innovations
Fig. 2. Standardization efforts and embedded knowledge dimensions: a typology of
search processes and innovation outcomes.
Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–7874
by changing component knowledge while leaving the product's
structural knowledge unchallenged (Henderson and Clark, 1990).
At the organizational level, active search and modular innovation
has limited impact on routines and systems.
Vanke has residential projects nationwide, but the rollout of
housing industrialization was initially limited to just Shenzhen
and Beijing. It was several years later that this strategy and stan-
dardization effort was applied elsewhere, for example in the
southwestern city of Chongqing. This restricted rollout of housing
industrialization was partly because of the delays in routinizing,
institutionalized and standardizing the implementation of the
innovations. Also, Vanke applied different levels of housing in-
dustrialization in different districts, depending on the availability
of supporting resources in the districts. In addition, the Chinese
government had not until recently enacted any legislation re-
quiring the use of housing industrialization methods in the con-
struction industry. The legitimacy of housing industrialization was
cemented as Vanke used active search to aggressively develop
nine major standards and innovations, which were eventually
approved by the Chinese government in March, 2015. Since then
all construction projects in China are required to meet the national
standards on housing industrialization pioneered by Vanke.
4.4. Integrative search and radical innovations
The final search type and innovation outcome in our typology
is integrative search and radical innovations, involves embedded
knowledge with high complexity and low codification. The search
is integrative because it employs and builds on the decentralized,
passive and active search types. Integrative search toggles be-
tween these different search processes to produce both ex-
plorative and exploitative learning (McCarthy and Gordon, 2011).
It is suited to environments where the regulations, demand, in-
novation and competitive actions in the industry are all changing
at different rates and in different directions. This is considered to
be a ‘conflicted’ industry dynamic that is unlikely to suit just one
type of search process (McCarthy et al., 2010).
The embedded knowledge in this case is linked to learning by
repetitive operation, as suggested by Nelson and Winter (1982).
Hierarchical learning may also be assimilated and gradually ac-
cumulated within an organization's memory, becoming a specific
part of routines that support dynamic capabilities and the pro-
duction of radical innovations (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Dy-
namic capabilities are cultivated through the recombination of
previous knowledge, and the amalgamation of new and different
knowledge vectors. These conditions promote radical innovations
that are clear departures from existing knowledge and practices
(Dewar and Dutton, 1986).
Central to the success of Vanke standardization effort was the
company's use of an integrative search. It initially adopted passive
search to apply for LEED and develop and standardize green
technologies for housing industrialization. Vanke gradually en-
larged the implementation of its housing industrialization in-
novations to its commercial products, as well as to its social wel-
fare projects such as indemnificatory apartments including low-
rent, affordable, price-fixed and public rental housing. A plan of
quality management, the Panshi Plan, was developed by refining
and documenting Vanke's best practice experience from these
projects into a set of standards for the whole company.
Vanke also conducted decentralized and active searches. It re-
cognized the possibility of being overthrown by emerging com-
panies in other sectors, such as manufacturing, information and
communication technology, and this resulted in the proposed
strategic transition of the company from developer to city service
provider. In 2014 Vanke organized in-company teams to learn
from companies such as Haier (household appliances
manufacturer), Alibaba (e-commerce), Tencent (internet service
provider), Xiaomi (smartphone manufacturer) and Baidu (internet
search engine). The decentralized and active searches opened the
potential for Vanke to collaborate with these firms to provide
novel products in the Chinese market. For example, Vanke now
provides value-added services to customers using the data ser-
vices of Baidu. Vanke also collaborated with partners to develop
standards and innovations for universal serial bus (USB) plugs,
sanitary appliances, air filters and door opening technology using
cell phones. The integrative search, dynamic capabilities and ra-
dical innovations also led Vanke to restructure the relationships
between firms in its supply chain. Vanke initiated a supply chain
alliance that included manufacturers, designers, developers, con-
struction and home decoration companies as well as research in-
stitutions such as Tsinghua University, Tongji University and
Tianjin University.
5. Discussion
While standardization efforts have been recognized as playing
a crucial role in how firms create and profit from innovation, we
found that existing empirical research offers inconsistent findings
on the relationship between standardization and innovation. To
help resolve these inconsistencies and further our understanding
of standardization, we examined how degrees of knowledge
complexity and codification impact the type of search required
and the resulting innovation outcome. We explained how these
two dimensions of knowledge combine to produce a typology of
four types of search process and four types of associated innova-
tion outcome. Using a detailed case study, we illustrated and
verified each dimension of our typology. Together the typology
and the case study help us to better understand how search im-
pacts the inter-play and relationship between standardization and
innovation outcomes.
5.1. Implications for the theory and practice
We now discuss four major implications of this, which we be-
lieve are of relevance to both management practice and future
empirical research.
First, this study demonstrates that search processes are im-
portant to major standardization efforts. In our case study it is
clear that multiple types of search were employed to acquire and
assimilate different dimensions of knowledge. The processes for
gaining this knowledge are at the heart of a standardization effort
and the associated innovation outcomes. Our typology and case
study show that there is a contingency relationship between
standardization, search and innovation outcomes, where one size
does not fit all. The quest for different types of knowledge, involves
different search approaches that in turn underlie the type of in-
novation outcome produced.
A second implication of our research is that the case study
provides provisional evidence for understanding how standardi-
zation efforts can be suited to different types of search process. For
example, we find that standardization efforts that employ decen-
tralized and passive search processes are positively linked to in-
cremental and architectural innovation outcomes. This is due to
the knowledge embedded in the standardization effort, which is
highly codified and complex. It promotes consensus and re-
combination among stakeholders, explaining why a standardiza-
tion effort strongly diffuses within the industry (Hashem and
Tann, 2007) and in turn shapes the industry structure (Lecocq and
Demil, 2006) and its value chain (Yoo et al., 2005).
Passive search that involves highly codified knowledge can lead
suppliers to lock-in with one another around the resulting
Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–78 75
standards and innovations (Unruh, 2000), resulting in strong
technological trajectories (Dosi, 1982; Smith et al., 2010). In con-
trast, when the knowledge in a standardization effort is char-
acterized as having low complexity and low codification it suits an
active search for modular innovations that involve designing
‘open’ component systems (Tassey, 2000), using trial and error
search activities (Daft and Weick, 1984) and conducting field stu-
dies (Smith et al., 2010). When the knowledge is characterized as
high complexity and low codification it suits integrative search
and radical innovation outcomes. As shown in our case study, in-
tegrative search involves recombining current relationships be-
tween stakeholders and encouraging novel solutions resulting in
component systems that disrupt existing product standards and
offerings.
A third implication is that a single standardization effort can
shift between different search processes over time. This is because
standardization efforts are complex activities that can take many
years to complete; the type of knowledge required during the
course of a standardization effort can vary and change. Conse-
quently, as found in our case study, there will likely be a pathway
of different search processes involved in a major standardization
effort.
In Fig. 3 we show the search pathway observed in our case
study. It begins with decentralized search, followed by active
search, passive and then integrative search. The knowledge char-
acteristics for decentralized search provide the starting point in
this pathway. The standardization effort begins with the search for
simple codifiable knowledge that often focuses on identifying
obvious gaps and needs to be addressed by the standardization
effort. An active search follows, as any lack of knowledge codifi-
cation requires a more skilled and costly search process to identify,
understand, assimilate and exploit the knowledge. Next is passive
search, as the efficiency of the investments in search become more
important and firms seek more explicit standards and complex
solutions to suit market needs. The final search in the pathway is
integrative. It is the most sophisticated, impactful, but difficult
form of search. The pathway of search types reflects the learning
and capabilities that prepare firms to undertake integrative search
and pursue radical innovation outcomes. This concept of a learning
pathway is what McCarthy et al. (2006: 440) refer to as “a ladder
of abstraction” for interpreting and managing different and higher
order types of search for different types of innovation outcome.
We thus suggest that a more strategic orientation towards stan-
dards can prevent inhibiting creativity and unnecessary delays as
identified by Hamel (2006) and Hill and Rothaermel (2003).
A fourth implication concerns managerial efforts in practice. If
management's goal is primarily incremental and/or architectural
innovation, it should be expected that the knowledge will be
standardized, and that decentralized and passive search processes
can be used. If the managerial objective is concerned with modular
and/or radical innovations, the knowledge will not likely be
standardized, and as a result active and integrative search pro-
cesses are appropriate. For company and government policies, if
decentralized and passive searches in the standardization efforts
are performed, incremental and architectural innovation are ex-
pected. To foster radical and modular innovations, it is necessary
to enable active and integrative search processes.
5.2. Imitations of this study
Some limitations of this study and related opportunities for
future research are worth noting.
While our case study allowed us to explore deeply the activ-
ities, events and interactions of a major standardization effort, like
all case studies, the generalizability of our finding maybe re-
stricted. For example, as the search pathway in Fig. 3 is based on
the standardization effort of just one case (Vanke), it is likely there
could be alternative viable pathways. These would involve some or
all of the search processes but in different orders, and thus the
different pathways will suit different standardization efforts. The
matching of a standardization effort with a given pathway will
likely be determined by the knowledge complexity and codifica-
tion as well as the innovation context in terms of factors such as
time scales, complexity, regulations and costs. For example, the
rapid development of code division multiple access (CDMA)
standards for radio communication technologies in Korea would
have a known innovation outcome that could involve a different
search pathway. The importance of the pace of innovation to a
search pathway is supported by Hill and Rothaermel (2003) who
claim that standardization efforts postpone the gestation period
between invention and successful commercialization.
While it can be argued that our findings may be less applicable
to firms in other industries, the value of the typology and findings
are grounded in prior theories and research. Furthermore, as this
particular industry setting has traditionally not been considered
innovation-intensive, we speculate that our typology is likely to
have even greater relevance for settings where innovation is fast
changing and core to sustained competitive advantage. This
should help motivate and make it easier for scholars to apply the
typology and ideas to other industry contexts.
Another limitation of this research is that our case was focused
on a successful case of a standardization effort that resulted in
industry leadership. We recognize that not all standardization ef-
forts will result in similar competitive advantages. Indeed, it would
be fruitful to explore cases where such efforts resulted in a
downward competitive trajectory, for example by creating bu-
reaucratic inefficiencies or commoditizing of the industry, as was
the case for nuts, bolts and screws.
6. Conclusion
The benefits and challenges of standardization have captured
the attention of managers and scholars, yet the empirical findings
on the impact of standardization on innovation are inconsistent.
Focusing on a standardization effort (i.e., when a firm pursues
standards to further innovation), our work draws upon onFig. 3. Pathway of search processes involved in a standardization effort.
Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–7876
research on the importance of search processes for innovation and
adopts a contingency approach to standardization effort, search
process and innovation outcome relationships. To examine these
relationships we developed a typology that provides a descriptive,
explanatory and predictive framework for researchers to examine
the diversity and impact of different standardization efforts. An
important implication is that standardization efforts need to be
seen as a long-term strategic initiatives that drive the creation and
adoption of standards and innovations. If the search processes and
resulting standards are not coordinated in pursuit of an innovation
goal, then the risk is the effort will be a collection of disconnected
standardization exercises that result in bureaucratic inefficiencies,
commoditization or the stifling of creativity.
Acknowledgments
This research was partly supported by the Humanity and Social
Science Youth foundation of Chinese Ministry Education
(13YJC630189) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Cen-
tral Universities (2015CDJXY). The authors are grateful to people
who helped in undertaking the research and making improve-
ments to this article. We would also like to thank the editors and
reviewers of Technovation for their insightful comments and
feedback on this research.
Reference
Anderson, P., Tushman, M.L., 1990. Technological discontinuities and dominant
designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 604–633.
Bénézech, D., Lambert, G., Lanoux, B., Lerch, C., Loos-Baroin, J., 2001. Completion of
knowledge codification: an illustration through the ISO 9000 standards im-
plementation process. Res. Policy 30, 1395–1407.
Beckert, J., 1999. Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change. The role of
strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organ. Stud.
(Walter De. Gruyter GmbH Co. KG.) 20, 777–799.
Chen, L., Shu, Q., 2012. Platform design on building energy-saving monitoring and
management system. Autom. Instrum. 10, 42–44.
Chiang, Y.-H., Hung, K.-P., 2010. Exploring open search strategies and perceived
innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowl-
edge flows. R&D Manag. 40, 292–299.
Cillo, P., Verona, G., 2008. Search styles in style searching: exploring innovation
strategies in fashion firms. Long Range Plan. 41, 650–671.
Cohen, M.W., Lenvinth, A.D., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on
learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 128–152.
Daft, R.L., Weick, K.E., 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation
systems. Acad. Manag. Rev. 9, 284–295.
Daft, R.L., Sormunen, J., Don, P., 1988. Chief executive scanning, environmental
characteristics, and company performance: an empirical study. Strateg. Manag.
J. 9, 123–139.
Damanpour, F., 1991. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of de-
terminants and moderators. Acad. Manag. J. 34, 555–590.
Dewar, R.D., Dutton, J.E., 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innova-
tions: an empirical analysis. Manag. Sci. 32, 1422–1433.
Dolfsma, W., Seo, D., 2013. Government policy and technological innovation – a
suggested typology. Technovation 33, 173–179.
Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested
interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res.
Policy 11, 147–162.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 14, 532–550.
Fabrizio, K.R., 2009. Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Res. Policy
38, 255–267.
Gao, P., Yu, J., Lyytinen, K., 2014. Government in standardization in the catching-up
context: case of China’s mobile system. Telecommun. Policy 38, 200–209.
Gilson, L.L., Mathieu, J.E., Shalley, C.E., Ruddy, T.M., 2005. Creativity and standar-
dization: complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Acad.
Manag. J. 48, 521–531.
Grøtnes, E., 2009. Standardization as open innovation: two cases from the mobile
industry. Info. Technol. People 22, 367–381.
Greve, H.R., 2003. A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: evi-
dence from shipbuilding. Acad. Manag. J. 46, 685–702.
Groesser, S.N., 2014. Co-evolution of legal and voluntary standards: development of
energy efficiency in Swiss residential building codes. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 87, 1–16.
Hamel, G., 2006. The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harv. Bus.
Rev. 84, 72–84.
Hashem, G., Tann, J., 2007. The adoption of ISO 9000 standards within the Egyptian
context: a diffusion of innovation approach. Total Qual. Manag. 18, 631–652.
Henderson, R.M., Clark, K.B., 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of
existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Adm. Sci. Q.
35, 9–30.
Hill, C.W.L., Rothaermel, F.T., 2003. The performance of incumbent firms in the face
of radical technological innovation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28, 257–274.
Hippel, E.v., Franke, N., Prügl, R., 2009. Pyramiding: efficient search for rare sub-
jects. Research Policy 38, 1397–1406.
Hytönen, H., Jarimo, T., Salo, A., Yli-Juuti, E., 2013. Markets for standardized tech-
nologies:patent licensing with principle of proportionality. Technovation 32,
523–535.
Jeppesen, L.B., Lakhani, K.R., 2010. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in
broadcast search. Organ. Sci. 21 (5), 1016–1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.1090.0491.
Kamp, L.M., Smits, R.E.H.M., Andriesse, C.D., 2004. Notions on learning applied to
wind turbine development in the Netherlands and Denmark. Energy Policy 32,
1625–1637.
Kano, S., 2000. Technical innovations, standardization and regional comparison – a
case study in mobile communications. Telecommun. Policy 24, 305–321.
Katila, R., Ahuja, G., 2002. Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of
search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 1183–1194.
Kleinsmann, M., Buijs, J., Valkenburg, R., 2010. Understanding the complexity of
knowledge integration in collaborative new product development teams: a
case study. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 27, 20–32.
Laursen, K., Salter, A., 2004. Searching high and low: what types of firms use
universities as a source of innovation? Res. Policy 33, 1201–1215.
Lecocq, X., Demil, B., 2006. Strategizing industry structure: the case of open systems
in a low-tech industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 27, 891–898.
Leiponen, A.E., 2008. Competing through cooperation: the organization of standard
setting in wireless telecommunications. Manag. Sci. 54, 1904–1919.
Lopez-Berzosa, D., Gawer, A., 2014. Innovation policy within private collectives:
evidence on 3GPP’s regulation mechanisms to facilitate collective innovation.
Technovation 34, 734–745.
Mahdi, S., 2003. Search strategy in product innovation process: theory and evi-
dence from the evolution of agrochemical lead discovery process. Ind. Corp.
Change 12, 235–270.
March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ.
Sci. 2, 71–87.
Matos, S., Hall, J., 2007. Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain:
the case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology. J.
Oper. Manag. 25, 1083–1102.
McCarthy, I.P., Gordon, B.R., 2011. Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D or-
ganizations: a management control system approach. R&D Manag. 41, 240–258.
McCarthy, I.P., Tsinopoulos, C., Allen, P., Anderssen, C.R., 2006. New product de-
velopment as a complex adaptive system of decisions. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 23,
437–456.
McCarthy, I.P., Lawrence, T.B., Wixted, B., Gordon, B.R., 2010. A multidimensional
conceptualization of environmental velocity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 604–626.
Miller, D.J., Fern, M.J., Cardinal, L.B., 2007. The use of knowledge for technilogical
innovation within diversified firms. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 307–326.
Narayanana, V.K., Chen, T., 2012. Research on technology standards: accomplish-
ment and challenges. Res. Policy 41, 1375–1406.
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Press
of Harvard University Press, The Belknap, United Kingdom.
Nicholson, B., Sahay, S., 2004. Embedded knowledge and offshore software devel-
opment. Info. Organ. 14, 329–365.
Rogers, E., 2003. The Diffusion of Innovation. Free Press, New York.
Rosenkopf, L., Nerkar, A., 2001. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, explora-
tion, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 22, 287.
Rosenkopf, L., Almeida, P., 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and
mobility. Manag. Sci. 49, 751–766.
Rysman, M., Simcoe, T., 2008. Patents and the performance of voluntary standard-
setting organizations. Manag. Sci. 54, 1920–1934.
Saltzman, J., Chatterjee, S., Raman, M., 2008. A framework for ICT standards crea-
tion: the case of ITU-T standard H.350. Info. Syst. 33, 285–299.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University
Press, United States.
Shenkar, O., Li, J., 1999. Knowledge search in international cooperative ventures.
Organ. Sci. 10, 134–143.
Sherif, M.H., 2006. Standards for telecommunications services. In: Jakobs, K. (Ed.),
Advanced Topics in Information Technology Standards and Standardization
Research.. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 183–205.
Siggelkow, N., 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 20–24.
Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., Grin, J., 2010. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions:
the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res. Policy 39,
435–448.
Tassey, G., 2000. Standardization in technology-based markets. Res. Policy 29,
587–602.
Teece, D.J., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for in-
tegration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15, 285–305.
Tether, B.S., Hipp, C., Miles, I., 2001. Standardisation and particularisation in ser-
vices: evidence from Germany. Res. Policy, 1115–1138.
Tsai, W., 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of
network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and
Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–78 77
performance. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 996–1004.
Tushman, M.L., O’Reilly, C.A., 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolu-
tionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Manag. Rev. 38, 8–30.
Unruh, G.C., 2000. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28, 817–830.
Utterback, J.M., 1996. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Harvard Business
School Press, United States.
Viardot, E., 2010. Achieving market leadership: the next challenge for technology
firms from growing countries. J. Technol. Manag. Grow. Econ. 1, 9–28.
Wang, S., 2012a. Process and Retreat Which Influenced My Life. Zhengjiang Uni-
versity Press, China.
Wang, S., 2012b. Success is Challenging Yourself. Lianhe Press, Beijing.
Wang, S., 2013. My Success Comes When People Don’t Need Me Anymore.
Zhengjiang University Press, China.
Wang, S., 2014a. Da Dao Dang Ran, Vanke and Me (2000–2013). CITIC Press, China.
Wang, S., 2014b. Road and Dream, Vanke and Me (1983–1999). CITIC Press, China.
Winter, S.G., 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In: Teece, D.J.
(Ed.), The Competitive Challenge. Ballinger, MA, Cambridge, pp. 159–184.
Wrighta, C., Sturdyb, A., Wyliec, N., 2012. Management innovation through stan-
dardization: consultants as standardizers of organizational practice. Res. Policy
41, 652–662.
Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE, United Kingdom.
Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K., Yang, H., 2005. The role of standards in innovation and dif-
fusion of broadband mobile services: the case of South Korea. J. Strateg. Info.
Syst. 25, 323–353.
Zack, M.H., 1999. Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Manag. Rev. 40, 45–58.
Zollo, M., Winter, S.G., 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic
capabilities. Organ. Sci., 13.
Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–7878

More Related Content

What's hot

More innovation in agri & food by collaborating in a new ecosystem
More innovation in agri & food by collaborating in a new ecosystem  More innovation in agri & food by collaborating in a new ecosystem
More innovation in agri & food by collaborating in a new ecosystem Nur America
 
National Innovation Systems & Institutions
National Innovation Systems & InstitutionsNational Innovation Systems & Institutions
National Innovation Systems & InstitutionsEbru Basak
 
Innovation management process
Innovation management processInnovation management process
Innovation management processHavusto
 
Why Research & Development?
Why Research & Development?Why Research & Development?
Why Research & Development?MakeWebBetter
 
The three paths to open innovation by barry jaruzelski & richard holman, pres...
The three paths to open innovation by barry jaruzelski & richard holman, pres...The three paths to open innovation by barry jaruzelski & richard holman, pres...
The three paths to open innovation by barry jaruzelski & richard holman, pres...Naval Bhushania
 
Organizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performance
Organizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performanceOrganizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performance
Organizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performanceIan McCarthy
 
Empowering SME Innovation - Building internal strengths and external partners...
Empowering SME Innovation - Building internal strengths and external partners...Empowering SME Innovation - Building internal strengths and external partners...
Empowering SME Innovation - Building internal strengths and external partners...enterpriseresearchcentre
 
Innovation
InnovationInnovation
Innovationbiya05
 
Innovation & Change Management
Innovation & Change ManagementInnovation & Change Management
Innovation & Change ManagementLauren Peters
 
3M Strategic Management Analysis
3M Strategic Management Analysis 3M Strategic Management Analysis
3M Strategic Management Analysis Bhavishya Sajith
 
Information System is a Competitive Weapon
Information System is a Competitive WeaponInformation System is a Competitive Weapon
Information System is a Competitive WeaponHumaidMustafaAlvi1
 
Innovation Framework For Manufacturing (With Addendum)
Innovation Framework For Manufacturing (With Addendum)Innovation Framework For Manufacturing (With Addendum)
Innovation Framework For Manufacturing (With Addendum)johncleveland
 

What's hot (20)

More innovation in agri & food by collaborating in a new ecosystem
More innovation in agri & food by collaborating in a new ecosystem  More innovation in agri & food by collaborating in a new ecosystem
More innovation in agri & food by collaborating in a new ecosystem
 
National Innovation Systems & Institutions
National Innovation Systems & InstitutionsNational Innovation Systems & Institutions
National Innovation Systems & Institutions
 
Innovation management process
Innovation management processInnovation management process
Innovation management process
 
Why Research & Development?
Why Research & Development?Why Research & Development?
Why Research & Development?
 
Creating an Innovation Strategy
Creating an Innovation Strategy Creating an Innovation Strategy
Creating an Innovation Strategy
 
The three paths to open innovation by barry jaruzelski & richard holman, pres...
The three paths to open innovation by barry jaruzelski & richard holman, pres...The three paths to open innovation by barry jaruzelski & richard holman, pres...
The three paths to open innovation by barry jaruzelski & richard holman, pres...
 
Organizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performance
Organizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performanceOrganizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performance
Organizational ambidexterity, market orientation, and firm performance
 
Product & Brand Management
Product & Brand ManagementProduct & Brand Management
Product & Brand Management
 
Research and Development
Research and DevelopmentResearch and Development
Research and Development
 
Empowering SME Innovation - Building internal strengths and external partners...
Empowering SME Innovation - Building internal strengths and external partners...Empowering SME Innovation - Building internal strengths and external partners...
Empowering SME Innovation - Building internal strengths and external partners...
 
AGRES Barriers for Innovation among Small and Medium scale Entrepreneurs
AGRES Barriers for Innovation among Small and Medium scale EntrepreneursAGRES Barriers for Innovation among Small and Medium scale Entrepreneurs
AGRES Barriers for Innovation among Small and Medium scale Entrepreneurs
 
Innovation
InnovationInnovation
Innovation
 
Slide Paolo Landoni
Slide Paolo LandoniSlide Paolo Landoni
Slide Paolo Landoni
 
Types of innovation
Types of innovationTypes of innovation
Types of innovation
 
Innovation & Change Management
Innovation & Change ManagementInnovation & Change Management
Innovation & Change Management
 
3M Strategic Management Analysis
3M Strategic Management Analysis 3M Strategic Management Analysis
3M Strategic Management Analysis
 
2016 - Lecture 7.pot
2016 - Lecture 7.pot2016 - Lecture 7.pot
2016 - Lecture 7.pot
 
Information System is a Competitive Weapon
Information System is a Competitive WeaponInformation System is a Competitive Weapon
Information System is a Competitive Weapon
 
Open Innovation
Open Innovation Open Innovation
Open Innovation
 
Innovation Framework For Manufacturing (With Addendum)
Innovation Framework For Manufacturing (With Addendum)Innovation Framework For Manufacturing (With Addendum)
Innovation Framework For Manufacturing (With Addendum)
 

Viewers also liked

Blind - Standardisation and standards as research and innovation indicators
Blind - Standardisation and standards as research and innovation indicatorsBlind - Standardisation and standards as research and innovation indicators
Blind - Standardisation and standards as research and innovation indicatorsinnovationoecd
 
Understanding the effects of outsourcing: unpacking the total factor producti...
Understanding the effects of outsourcing: unpacking the total factor producti...Understanding the effects of outsourcing: unpacking the total factor producti...
Understanding the effects of outsourcing: unpacking the total factor producti...Ian McCarthy
 
Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control...
Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control...Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control...
Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control...Ian McCarthy
 
Toward a Phylogenetic Reconstruction of Organizational Life
Toward a Phylogenetic Reconstruction of Organizational LifeToward a Phylogenetic Reconstruction of Organizational Life
Toward a Phylogenetic Reconstruction of Organizational LifeIan McCarthy
 
Achieving Agility Using Cladistics: An Evolutionary Analysis
Achieving Agility Using Cladistics: An Evolutionary AnalysisAchieving Agility Using Cladistics: An Evolutionary Analysis
Achieving Agility Using Cladistics: An Evolutionary AnalysisIan McCarthy
 
Remanufacturing is_a_superior_choce.pdf
 Remanufacturing is_a_superior_choce.pdf Remanufacturing is_a_superior_choce.pdf
Remanufacturing is_a_superior_choce.pdfMichael Davis
 
Innovation in manufacturing as an evolutionary complex system
Innovation in manufacturing as an evolutionary complex systemInnovation in manufacturing as an evolutionary complex system
Innovation in manufacturing as an evolutionary complex systemIan McCarthy
 
Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classifications
Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classificationsOrganisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classifications
Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classificationsIan McCarthy
 
When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative con...
When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative con...When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative con...
When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative con...Ian McCarthy
 
Understanding outsourcing contexts through information asymmetry and capabili...
Understanding outsourcing contexts through information asymmetry and capabili...Understanding outsourcing contexts through information asymmetry and capabili...
Understanding outsourcing contexts through information asymmetry and capabili...Ian McCarthy
 
The ability of current statistical classifications to separateservices and ma...
The ability of current statistical classifications to separateservices and ma...The ability of current statistical classifications to separateservices and ma...
The ability of current statistical classifications to separateservices and ma...Ian McCarthy
 
Complex adaptive system mechanisms, adaptive management practices, and firm p...
Complex adaptive system mechanisms, adaptive management practices, and firm p...Complex adaptive system mechanisms, adaptive management practices, and firm p...
Complex adaptive system mechanisms, adaptive management practices, and firm p...Ian McCarthy
 
Technology Management - A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach
Technology Management - A Complex Adaptive Systems ApproachTechnology Management - A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach
Technology Management - A Complex Adaptive Systems ApproachIan McCarthy
 
New Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of Decisions
New Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of DecisionsNew Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of Decisions
New Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of DecisionsIan McCarthy
 
Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?
Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?
Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?Ian McCarthy
 
Unpacking the Social Media Phenomenon: Towards a Research Agenda
Unpacking the Social Media Phenomenon: Towards a Research AgendaUnpacking the Social Media Phenomenon: Towards a Research Agenda
Unpacking the Social Media Phenomenon: Towards a Research AgendaIan McCarthy
 
Making a face: Graphical illustrations of managerial stances toward customer ...
Making a face: Graphical illustrations of managerial stances toward customer ...Making a face: Graphical illustrations of managerial stances toward customer ...
Making a face: Graphical illustrations of managerial stances toward customer ...Ian McCarthy
 
Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamification
Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamificationGame on: Engaging customers and employees through gamification
Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamificationIan McCarthy
 
Executive Digest: managing resources, managing the crowd and disrupting indus...
Executive Digest: managing resources, managing the crowd and disrupting indus...Executive Digest: managing resources, managing the crowd and disrupting indus...
Executive Digest: managing resources, managing the crowd and disrupting indus...Ian McCarthy
 
Knowledge Intensive Business Services and Innovation
Knowledge Intensive Business Services and InnovationKnowledge Intensive Business Services and Innovation
Knowledge Intensive Business Services and InnovationIan Miles
 

Viewers also liked (20)

Blind - Standardisation and standards as research and innovation indicators
Blind - Standardisation and standards as research and innovation indicatorsBlind - Standardisation and standards as research and innovation indicators
Blind - Standardisation and standards as research and innovation indicators
 
Understanding the effects of outsourcing: unpacking the total factor producti...
Understanding the effects of outsourcing: unpacking the total factor producti...Understanding the effects of outsourcing: unpacking the total factor producti...
Understanding the effects of outsourcing: unpacking the total factor producti...
 
Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control...
Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control...Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control...
Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control...
 
Toward a Phylogenetic Reconstruction of Organizational Life
Toward a Phylogenetic Reconstruction of Organizational LifeToward a Phylogenetic Reconstruction of Organizational Life
Toward a Phylogenetic Reconstruction of Organizational Life
 
Achieving Agility Using Cladistics: An Evolutionary Analysis
Achieving Agility Using Cladistics: An Evolutionary AnalysisAchieving Agility Using Cladistics: An Evolutionary Analysis
Achieving Agility Using Cladistics: An Evolutionary Analysis
 
Remanufacturing is_a_superior_choce.pdf
 Remanufacturing is_a_superior_choce.pdf Remanufacturing is_a_superior_choce.pdf
Remanufacturing is_a_superior_choce.pdf
 
Innovation in manufacturing as an evolutionary complex system
Innovation in manufacturing as an evolutionary complex systemInnovation in manufacturing as an evolutionary complex system
Innovation in manufacturing as an evolutionary complex system
 
Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classifications
Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classificationsOrganisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classifications
Organisational diversity, evolution and cladistic classifications
 
When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative con...
When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative con...When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative con...
When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative con...
 
Understanding outsourcing contexts through information asymmetry and capabili...
Understanding outsourcing contexts through information asymmetry and capabili...Understanding outsourcing contexts through information asymmetry and capabili...
Understanding outsourcing contexts through information asymmetry and capabili...
 
The ability of current statistical classifications to separateservices and ma...
The ability of current statistical classifications to separateservices and ma...The ability of current statistical classifications to separateservices and ma...
The ability of current statistical classifications to separateservices and ma...
 
Complex adaptive system mechanisms, adaptive management practices, and firm p...
Complex adaptive system mechanisms, adaptive management practices, and firm p...Complex adaptive system mechanisms, adaptive management practices, and firm p...
Complex adaptive system mechanisms, adaptive management practices, and firm p...
 
Technology Management - A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach
Technology Management - A Complex Adaptive Systems ApproachTechnology Management - A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach
Technology Management - A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach
 
New Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of Decisions
New Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of DecisionsNew Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of Decisions
New Product Development as a Complex Adaptive System of Decisions
 
Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?
Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?
Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?
 
Unpacking the Social Media Phenomenon: Towards a Research Agenda
Unpacking the Social Media Phenomenon: Towards a Research AgendaUnpacking the Social Media Phenomenon: Towards a Research Agenda
Unpacking the Social Media Phenomenon: Towards a Research Agenda
 
Making a face: Graphical illustrations of managerial stances toward customer ...
Making a face: Graphical illustrations of managerial stances toward customer ...Making a face: Graphical illustrations of managerial stances toward customer ...
Making a face: Graphical illustrations of managerial stances toward customer ...
 
Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamification
Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamificationGame on: Engaging customers and employees through gamification
Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamification
 
Executive Digest: managing resources, managing the crowd and disrupting indus...
Executive Digest: managing resources, managing the crowd and disrupting indus...Executive Digest: managing resources, managing the crowd and disrupting indus...
Executive Digest: managing resources, managing the crowd and disrupting indus...
 
Knowledge Intensive Business Services and Innovation
Knowledge Intensive Business Services and InnovationKnowledge Intensive Business Services and Innovation
Knowledge Intensive Business Services and Innovation
 

Similar to Standardization efforts:The relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes

A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Lite...
A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Lite...A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Lite...
A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Lite...Monica Waters
 
Beyond Lean Overcoming Resistance To Innovation To Improve Productivity
Beyond Lean Overcoming Resistance To Innovation To Improve ProductivityBeyond Lean Overcoming Resistance To Innovation To Improve Productivity
Beyond Lean Overcoming Resistance To Innovation To Improve Productivityneveenahmed
 
Perspectives on Innovation and Technology Transfer
Perspectives on Innovation and Technology TransferPerspectives on Innovation and Technology Transfer
Perspectives on Innovation and Technology TransferMikus Dubickis
 
1_Operations_Management_in_High_Value_Ma.pdf
1_Operations_Management_in_High_Value_Ma.pdf1_Operations_Management_in_High_Value_Ma.pdf
1_Operations_Management_in_High_Value_Ma.pdfAbhishekModak17
 
Strategy for Technology Transfer and Research Results Commercialization in Un...
Strategy for Technology Transfer and Research Results Commercialization in Un...Strategy for Technology Transfer and Research Results Commercialization in Un...
Strategy for Technology Transfer and Research Results Commercialization in Un...YogeshIJTSRD
 
The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdf
The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdfThe_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdf
The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdfSashaKing4
 
A Tool For Enhancing Innovation In Construction Organizations
A Tool For Enhancing Innovation In Construction OrganizationsA Tool For Enhancing Innovation In Construction Organizations
A Tool For Enhancing Innovation In Construction OrganizationsKristen Flores
 
Attitudinal, situational and personal characteristics as predictors of future...
Attitudinal, situational and personal characteristics as predictors of future...Attitudinal, situational and personal characteristics as predictors of future...
Attitudinal, situational and personal characteristics as predictors of future...Antonio Dottore
 
In Search of an Open Innovation Theory
In Search of an Open Innovation TheoryIn Search of an Open Innovation Theory
In Search of an Open Innovation TheoryVarun Deo
 
Carroll-2019--Large-ScaleAgileTransformations.pdf
Carroll-2019--Large-ScaleAgileTransformations.pdfCarroll-2019--Large-ScaleAgileTransformations.pdf
Carroll-2019--Large-ScaleAgileTransformations.pdfZehraKoker
 
Towards open innovation measurement system – a literature review
Towards open innovation measurement system – a literature reviewTowards open innovation measurement system – a literature review
Towards open innovation measurement system – a literature reviewar1815
 
2003 08 07innovationdiffusion
2003 08 07innovationdiffusion2003 08 07innovationdiffusion
2003 08 07innovationdiffusionArunjunai Vignesh
 
Lean thinking literature review and suggestions for future research
Lean thinking literature review and suggestions for future researchLean thinking literature review and suggestions for future research
Lean thinking literature review and suggestions for future researchWorld-Academic Journal
 
Giant leaps or small steps
Giant leaps or small stepsGiant leaps or small steps
Giant leaps or small stepsCarmen Neghina
 
Examining Innovation Capability In A Supply Chain Context
Examining Innovation Capability In A Supply Chain ContextExamining Innovation Capability In A Supply Chain Context
Examining Innovation Capability In A Supply Chain ContextCSCJournals
 
Academic scientist's motivation in research commercialization from national r...
Academic scientist's motivation in research commercialization from national r...Academic scientist's motivation in research commercialization from national r...
Academic scientist's motivation in research commercialization from national r...Alexander Decker
 
A taxonomy of supply chain innovations
A taxonomy of supply chain innovationsA taxonomy of supply chain innovations
A taxonomy of supply chain innovationsertekg
 
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o.pdf
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o.pdfA_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o.pdf
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o.pdfSGB Media Group
 
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o (1).pdf
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o (1).pdfA_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o (1).pdf
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o (1).pdfSGB Media Group
 

Similar to Standardization efforts:The relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes (20)

A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Lite...
A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Lite...A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Lite...
A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Lite...
 
Beyond Lean Overcoming Resistance To Innovation To Improve Productivity
Beyond Lean Overcoming Resistance To Innovation To Improve ProductivityBeyond Lean Overcoming Resistance To Innovation To Improve Productivity
Beyond Lean Overcoming Resistance To Innovation To Improve Productivity
 
Perspectives on Innovation and Technology Transfer
Perspectives on Innovation and Technology TransferPerspectives on Innovation and Technology Transfer
Perspectives on Innovation and Technology Transfer
 
1_Operations_Management_in_High_Value_Ma.pdf
1_Operations_Management_in_High_Value_Ma.pdf1_Operations_Management_in_High_Value_Ma.pdf
1_Operations_Management_in_High_Value_Ma.pdf
 
Strategy for Technology Transfer and Research Results Commercialization in Un...
Strategy for Technology Transfer and Research Results Commercialization in Un...Strategy for Technology Transfer and Research Results Commercialization in Un...
Strategy for Technology Transfer and Research Results Commercialization in Un...
 
The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdf
The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdfThe_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdf
The_process_of_organisational_change_in_open_innov.pdf
 
A Tool For Enhancing Innovation In Construction Organizations
A Tool For Enhancing Innovation In Construction OrganizationsA Tool For Enhancing Innovation In Construction Organizations
A Tool For Enhancing Innovation In Construction Organizations
 
Attitudinal, situational and personal characteristics as predictors of future...
Attitudinal, situational and personal characteristics as predictors of future...Attitudinal, situational and personal characteristics as predictors of future...
Attitudinal, situational and personal characteristics as predictors of future...
 
In Search of an Open Innovation Theory
In Search of an Open Innovation TheoryIn Search of an Open Innovation Theory
In Search of an Open Innovation Theory
 
The open innovation journey in emerging economies an analysis of the brazilia...
The open innovation journey in emerging economies an analysis of the brazilia...The open innovation journey in emerging economies an analysis of the brazilia...
The open innovation journey in emerging economies an analysis of the brazilia...
 
Carroll-2019--Large-ScaleAgileTransformations.pdf
Carroll-2019--Large-ScaleAgileTransformations.pdfCarroll-2019--Large-ScaleAgileTransformations.pdf
Carroll-2019--Large-ScaleAgileTransformations.pdf
 
Towards open innovation measurement system – a literature review
Towards open innovation measurement system – a literature reviewTowards open innovation measurement system – a literature review
Towards open innovation measurement system – a literature review
 
2003 08 07innovationdiffusion
2003 08 07innovationdiffusion2003 08 07innovationdiffusion
2003 08 07innovationdiffusion
 
Lean thinking literature review and suggestions for future research
Lean thinking literature review and suggestions for future researchLean thinking literature review and suggestions for future research
Lean thinking literature review and suggestions for future research
 
Giant leaps or small steps
Giant leaps or small stepsGiant leaps or small steps
Giant leaps or small steps
 
Examining Innovation Capability In A Supply Chain Context
Examining Innovation Capability In A Supply Chain ContextExamining Innovation Capability In A Supply Chain Context
Examining Innovation Capability In A Supply Chain Context
 
Academic scientist's motivation in research commercialization from national r...
Academic scientist's motivation in research commercialization from national r...Academic scientist's motivation in research commercialization from national r...
Academic scientist's motivation in research commercialization from national r...
 
A taxonomy of supply chain innovations
A taxonomy of supply chain innovationsA taxonomy of supply chain innovations
A taxonomy of supply chain innovations
 
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o.pdf
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o.pdfA_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o.pdf
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o.pdf
 
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o (1).pdf
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o (1).pdfA_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o (1).pdf
A_review_of_the_role_and_effectiveness_o (1).pdf
 

More from Ian McCarthy

The open academic: Why and how business academics should use social media to ...
The open academic: Why and how business academics should use social media to ...The open academic: Why and how business academics should use social media to ...
The open academic: Why and how business academics should use social media to ...Ian McCarthy
 
Big Data for Creating and Capturing Value in the Digitalized Environment: Unp...
Big Data for Creating and Capturing Value in the Digitalized Environment: Unp...Big Data for Creating and Capturing Value in the Digitalized Environment: Unp...
Big Data for Creating and Capturing Value in the Digitalized Environment: Unp...Ian McCarthy
 
Standardization in a Digital and Global World: State-of-the-Art and Future Pe...
Standardization in a Digital and Global World: State-of-the-Art and Future Pe...Standardization in a Digital and Global World: State-of-the-Art and Future Pe...
Standardization in a Digital and Global World: State-of-the-Art and Future Pe...Ian McCarthy
 
Open branding: Managing the unauthorized use of brand-related intellectual pr...
Open branding: Managing the unauthorized use of brand-related intellectual pr...Open branding: Managing the unauthorized use of brand-related intellectual pr...
Open branding: Managing the unauthorized use of brand-related intellectual pr...Ian McCarthy
 
Does getting along matter? Tourist-tourist rapport in guided group activities
Does getting along matter? Tourist-tourist rapport in guided group activitiesDoes getting along matter? Tourist-tourist rapport in guided group activities
Does getting along matter? Tourist-tourist rapport in guided group activitiesIan McCarthy
 
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshitConfronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshitIan McCarthy
 
What Next for Rowing? Exploring the Discontinuous Side of Change
What Next for Rowing? Exploring the Discontinuous Side of ChangeWhat Next for Rowing? Exploring the Discontinuous Side of Change
What Next for Rowing? Exploring the Discontinuous Side of ChangeIan McCarthy
 
Social media? It's serious! Understanding the dark side of social media
Social media? It's serious! Understanding the dark side of social mediaSocial media? It's serious! Understanding the dark side of social media
Social media? It's serious! Understanding the dark side of social mediaIan McCarthy
 
Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategie...
Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategie...Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategie...
Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategie...Ian McCarthy
 
Do your employees think your slogan is “fake news?” A framework for understan...
Do your employees think your slogan is “fake news?” A framework for understan...Do your employees think your slogan is “fake news?” A framework for understan...
Do your employees think your slogan is “fake news?” A framework for understan...Ian McCarthy
 
Making sense of text: artificial intelligence-enabled content analysis
Making sense of text: artificial intelligence-enabled content analysisMaking sense of text: artificial intelligence-enabled content analysis
Making sense of text: artificial intelligence-enabled content analysisIan McCarthy
 
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshitConfronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshitIan McCarthy
 
The Promise of Digitalization: Unpacking the Effects of Big Data Volume, Vari...
The Promise of Digitalization: Unpacking the Effects of Big Data Volume, Vari...The Promise of Digitalization: Unpacking the Effects of Big Data Volume, Vari...
The Promise of Digitalization: Unpacking the Effects of Big Data Volume, Vari...Ian McCarthy
 
Masterclass: Confronting indifference to truth
Masterclass: Confronting indifference to truthMasterclass: Confronting indifference to truth
Masterclass: Confronting indifference to truthIan McCarthy
 
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshitConfronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshitIan McCarthy
 
Deepfakes: Trick or Treat?
Deepfakes: Trick or Treat?Deepfakes: Trick or Treat?
Deepfakes: Trick or Treat?Ian McCarthy
 
Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media
Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social mediaSocial media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media
Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social mediaIan McCarthy
 
The propensity and speed of technology licensing: at LUISS Guido Carli Univer...
The propensity and speed of technology licensing: at LUISS Guido Carli Univer...The propensity and speed of technology licensing: at LUISS Guido Carli Univer...
The propensity and speed of technology licensing: at LUISS Guido Carli Univer...Ian McCarthy
 
Seven steps for framing and testing a research paper
Seven steps for framing and testing a research paperSeven steps for framing and testing a research paper
Seven steps for framing and testing a research paperIan McCarthy
 
Being a Business School Professor
Being a Business School ProfessorBeing a Business School Professor
Being a Business School ProfessorIan McCarthy
 

More from Ian McCarthy (20)

The open academic: Why and how business academics should use social media to ...
The open academic: Why and how business academics should use social media to ...The open academic: Why and how business academics should use social media to ...
The open academic: Why and how business academics should use social media to ...
 
Big Data for Creating and Capturing Value in the Digitalized Environment: Unp...
Big Data for Creating and Capturing Value in the Digitalized Environment: Unp...Big Data for Creating and Capturing Value in the Digitalized Environment: Unp...
Big Data for Creating and Capturing Value in the Digitalized Environment: Unp...
 
Standardization in a Digital and Global World: State-of-the-Art and Future Pe...
Standardization in a Digital and Global World: State-of-the-Art and Future Pe...Standardization in a Digital and Global World: State-of-the-Art and Future Pe...
Standardization in a Digital and Global World: State-of-the-Art and Future Pe...
 
Open branding: Managing the unauthorized use of brand-related intellectual pr...
Open branding: Managing the unauthorized use of brand-related intellectual pr...Open branding: Managing the unauthorized use of brand-related intellectual pr...
Open branding: Managing the unauthorized use of brand-related intellectual pr...
 
Does getting along matter? Tourist-tourist rapport in guided group activities
Does getting along matter? Tourist-tourist rapport in guided group activitiesDoes getting along matter? Tourist-tourist rapport in guided group activities
Does getting along matter? Tourist-tourist rapport in guided group activities
 
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshitConfronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
 
What Next for Rowing? Exploring the Discontinuous Side of Change
What Next for Rowing? Exploring the Discontinuous Side of ChangeWhat Next for Rowing? Exploring the Discontinuous Side of Change
What Next for Rowing? Exploring the Discontinuous Side of Change
 
Social media? It's serious! Understanding the dark side of social media
Social media? It's serious! Understanding the dark side of social mediaSocial media? It's serious! Understanding the dark side of social media
Social media? It's serious! Understanding the dark side of social media
 
Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategie...
Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategie...Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategie...
Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategie...
 
Do your employees think your slogan is “fake news?” A framework for understan...
Do your employees think your slogan is “fake news?” A framework for understan...Do your employees think your slogan is “fake news?” A framework for understan...
Do your employees think your slogan is “fake news?” A framework for understan...
 
Making sense of text: artificial intelligence-enabled content analysis
Making sense of text: artificial intelligence-enabled content analysisMaking sense of text: artificial intelligence-enabled content analysis
Making sense of text: artificial intelligence-enabled content analysis
 
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshitConfronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
 
The Promise of Digitalization: Unpacking the Effects of Big Data Volume, Vari...
The Promise of Digitalization: Unpacking the Effects of Big Data Volume, Vari...The Promise of Digitalization: Unpacking the Effects of Big Data Volume, Vari...
The Promise of Digitalization: Unpacking the Effects of Big Data Volume, Vari...
 
Masterclass: Confronting indifference to truth
Masterclass: Confronting indifference to truthMasterclass: Confronting indifference to truth
Masterclass: Confronting indifference to truth
 
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshitConfronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit
 
Deepfakes: Trick or Treat?
Deepfakes: Trick or Treat?Deepfakes: Trick or Treat?
Deepfakes: Trick or Treat?
 
Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media
Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social mediaSocial media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media
Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media
 
The propensity and speed of technology licensing: at LUISS Guido Carli Univer...
The propensity and speed of technology licensing: at LUISS Guido Carli Univer...The propensity and speed of technology licensing: at LUISS Guido Carli Univer...
The propensity and speed of technology licensing: at LUISS Guido Carli Univer...
 
Seven steps for framing and testing a research paper
Seven steps for framing and testing a research paperSeven steps for framing and testing a research paper
Seven steps for framing and testing a research paper
 
Being a Business School Professor
Being a Business School ProfessorBeing a Business School Professor
Being a Business School Professor
 

Recently uploaded

Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)tazeenaila12
 
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZMihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZKanakChauhan5
 
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHelene Heckrotte
 
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsUpgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsIntellect Design Arena Ltd
 
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Lviv Startup Club
 
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024Stephan Koning
 
Project Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture ReportProject Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture Reportamberjiles31
 
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access
 
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb toLecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb toumarfarooquejamali32
 
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.mcshagufta46
 
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdf
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdfPDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdf
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdfHajeJanKamps
 
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...TalentView
 
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarLive-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarNathanielSchmuck
 
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, Ours
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, OursDeveloping Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, Ours
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, OursKaiNexus
 
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBBPMedia1
 
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access
 
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentation
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor PresentationMoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentation
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentationbaron83
 
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessQ2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessAPCO
 
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdfGraham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdfAnhNguyen97152
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
 
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZMihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
 
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
 
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsUpgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
 
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
 
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 
Project Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture ReportProject Brief & Information Architecture Report
Project Brief & Information Architecture Report
 
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
 
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb toLecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
 
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
 
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdf
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdfPDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdf
PDT 88 - 4 million seed - Seed - Protecto.pdf
 
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...
TalentView Webinar: Empowering the Modern Workforce_ Redefininig Success from...
 
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry WebinarLive-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
Live-Streaming in the Music Industry Webinar
 
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, Ours
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, OursDeveloping Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, Ours
Developing Coaching Skills: Mine, Yours, Ours
 
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John MeulemansBCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
BCE24 | Virtual Brand Ambassadors: Making Brands Personal - John Meulemans
 
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global B2B Panel book-unlock 2024
 
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentation
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor PresentationMoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentation
MoneyBridge Pitch Deck - Investor Presentation
 
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessQ2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
 
Investment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV Industries
Investment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV IndustriesInvestment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV Industries
Investment Opportunity for Thailand's Automotive & EV Industries
 
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdfGraham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
 

Standardization efforts:The relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes

  • 1. Standardization efforts: The relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes Zongjie Xie a,n , Jeremy Hall b , Ian P. McCarthy c , Martin Skitmore d , Liyin Shen a a School of Construction Management and Real Estate, International Research Centre for Sustainable Built Environment, Chongqing University, 174 Shazhengjie, Chongqing, 400030 PR China b Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK c Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 d Faculty of Science and Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 30 September 2014 Received in revised form 2 December 2015 Accepted 16 December 2015 Available online 24 December 2015 Keywords: Standardization effort Search process Innovation Knowledge Construction industry a b s t r a c t We explore how a standardization effort (i.e., when a firm pursues standards to further innovation) involves different search processes for knowledge and innovation outcomes. Using an inductive case study of Vanke, a leading Chinese property developer, we show how varying degrees of knowledge complexity and codification combine to produce a typology of four types of search process: active, in- tegrative, decentralized and passive, resulting in four types of innovation outcome: modular, radical, in- cremental and architectural. We argue that when the standardization effort in a firm involves highly codified knowledge, incremental and architectural innovation outcomes are fostered, while modular and radical innovations are hindered. We discuss how standardization efforts can result in a second-order innovation capability, and conclude by calling for comparative research in other settings to understand how standardization efforts can be suited to different types of search process in different industry contexts. & 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 1. Introduction This paper focuses on how a firm's standardization efforts im- pact its knowledge search processes, and the resulting innovation outcomes. Standardization is the process of developing and im- plementing specifications based on the consensus of the views of firms, users, interest groups and governments (Sherif, 2006; Saltzman et al., 2008). The resulting standards are intended to promote compatibility, interoperability and quality. An early ex- ample of standardization is the regulation of the sizes of the threads that we find on nuts, bolts and screws, which was achieved by the development of a screw-cutting lathe that could repeatedly produce these products to specific standards with universal applications. Standards can be developed and governed by Standards De- velopment Organizations (SDO) or independently, for example, by firms who have a first mover or dominant position in the market (Utterback, 1996). When a firm pursues a standard to produce an innovation outcome, this what we call a ‘standardization effort'. More specifically, a standardization effort is when a firm pursues a leadership role in developing standards to further innovation. For example, Google followed a standardization effort when acquiring and developing the innovations for its mobile operating system, Android (Grøtnes, 2009). Scholars have argued that standardization has a significant impact on the creation and diffusion of innovations (Dolfsma and Seo, 2013; Grøtnes, 2009; Lecocq and Demil, 2006; Tassey, 2000; Wrighta et al., 2012). However, prior research on the relationship between standardization and innovation remains inconsistent. For example, some studies have proposed a positive relationship (Rysman and Simcoe, 2008), where standardization fosters the diffusion of innovation (Hashem and Tann, 2007) and changes industrial structures (Lecocq and Demil, 2006), whereas others have argued that it constrains innovation, by inhibiting creativity (Hamel, 2006) and postponing the gestation period between in- vention and successful commercialization (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003). A number of studies have noted this unclear relationship between innovation and standardization (Gilson et al., 2005; Kano, 2000; Wrighta et al., 2012; Yoo et al., 2005). In one case, Damanpour (1991) argues that standardization can establish managerial control when implementing innovation in a Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation Technovation http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.12.002 0166-4972/& 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). n Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: zjxie@cqu.edu.cn (Z. Xie), jeremy.hall@nottingham.ac.uk (J. Hall), ian_mccarth@sfu.ca (I.P. McCarthy), rm.skitmore@qut.edu.au (M. Skitmore), shenliyin@cqu.edu.cn (L. Shen). Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–78
  • 2. manufacturing context, but it might also constrain the producer– client relationship in a service context. Given such inconsistencies, better understanding the inter-play and relationship between standardization and innovation is an important research opportunity. In response, this study aims to improve our understanding of how the search for knowledge associated with a firm's standar- dization effort can result in more effective innovation manage- ment. According to Nelson and Winter (1982), understanding how firms search for knowledge helps to explain innovative behavior, a perspective that has since been widely applied within the in- novation discourse (Chiang and Hung, 2010; Cillo and Verona, 2008; Fabrizio, 2009; Laursen and Salter, 2004; Mahdi, 2003). For example, Rosenkopf and Nerkar (2001) explored how a local search for solutions, using current knowledge, contrasts with distant search, or what Rosenkopf and Almeida (2003) call ex- plorative learning. Katila and Ahuja (2002) focused on search depth (how deeply existing knowledge is reused) and search scope (how widely new knowledge is explored), while Greve (2003) investigated problematic search caused by low performance and slack search caused by excess resources. In addition to how variations in search scope can impact in- novation, studies have also highlighted the importance of different approaches to search. Broadcast search is suited to external solvers self-selecting themselves to create a solution (Jeppesen and Lakhani, 2010). In contrast ‘pyramiding’, a search process based upon the view that appropriate experts will know other appro- priate experts, is used for identifying individuals who have more of a given attribute by “moving up to the pyramid” (Hippel et al., 2009:1398). Furthermore, search processes can vary in terms of the extent to which alliance partners jointly search for new knowledge across different knowledge domains (Zack, 1999) or use search processes to selectively target knowledge sources from product market, science and suppliers (McCarthy et al., 2006; Nicholson and Sahay, 2004). We present our arguments in four sections. First, we review the literature on standardization and innovation to identify how dif- ferent dimensions of knowledge, embedded in the standardization effort, can impact different types of innovation outcome (see Fig. 1). We also examine and illustrate the potential relationships between the different dimensions of knowledge, search processes and innovation outcomes involved in a standardization effort. Second, to investigate and illustrate the relationships between these elements of a standardization effort, we present a case study on Vanke Co., Ltd. (Vanke), the largest residential property de- veloper in China. For almost 16 years, Vanke has undertaken a standardization effort in housing design and construction. This resulted in standards and innovations for mass off-site fabrication (referred to as ‘housing industrialization’), which have since been adopted by the Chinese construction industry and influenced re- lated Chinese government policies. Third, we discuss the case findings and present a typology of four types of search process: active, integrative, decentralized and passive, along with four dif- ferent types of innovation outcome: modular, radical, incremental and architectural. Finally, we conclude the paper by discussing theoretical and practical implications of our research. 2. Standardization and innovation in management research Looking across the literature that explores the relationship between standardization and innovation, we identify two recur- ring main themes – knowledge embedded in standardization and types of innovation outcome (see Table 1). In this section we specifically discuss knowledge in the context of a firm's standar- dization effort. In addition, we discuss innovation from the per- spective of searching for knowledge during a standardization ef- fort. Although widely acknowledged as a key to understanding innovative behavior, search is only alluded to in the standardiza- tion discourse. The dearth of research in this area is reflected in its absence from our literature summary table (Table 1). Fig. 1. Standardization efforts and the relationship between knowledge dimen- sions, search processes and innovation outcomes. Table 1 Standardization and innovation in management research. Example study Dimensions of knowledge embedded in a firm's standar- dization effort Types of innovation outcome Tassey (2000) High codification, high complexity Modular/architectural/incremental/radical Kano (2000) High or low codification, high complexity Systematic/stand-alone Tether et al. (2001) High codification, high complexity Service/process Yoo et al. (2005) High or low codification, high complexity Diffusion/system/process Rysman and Simcoe (2008) High codification, high complexity Diffusion/cumulative Leiponen (2008) High or low codification, high complexity No classification Grøtnes (2009) High or low codification, high complexity Outside-in/inside-out/coupled process Viardot (2010) High or low codification, high complexity Incremental/radical Wrighta et al. (2012) High codification, high or low complexity Incremental/radical management innovation Narayanana and Chen (2012) High or low codification, high complexity Modular/architectural/incremental/radical/product/process/institu- tional/industrial/technological Hytönen et al. (2013) High or low codification, high complexity No classification Dolfsma and Seo (2013) High codification, high complexity Discrete/cumulative Gao et al. (2014) High or low codification, high complexity Diffusion/capability Groesser (2014) High or low codification, high complexity System/diffusion/incremental Lopez-Berzosa and Gawer (2014) High codification, high complexity Collective innovation Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–7870
  • 3. 2.1. Knowledge embedded in a firm's standardization effort Standardization is a deliberate attempt by an organization to develop, ratify and implement standards among stakeholders (Gao et al., 2014). Standardization can be led by a Standards Develop- ment Organization (SDO), such as the American Society of Me- chanical Engineers (ASME) that oversees standards for mechanical components and devices. It can also be led by individual firms pursuing a standard for their products or processes and related innovations. This is called a ‘standardization effort’. For example, Google developed the Android operating system for mobile tele- communication devices (Grøtnes, 2009), and management and accounting consultancies have, over time, developed standardized agendas and methods used within their industry (Wrighta et al., 2012). Table 1 presents that research on standardization and innova- tion has employed two dimensions of knowledge to characterize the processes: codification and complexity. Codification refers to the extent to which knowledge can be documented, transferred or shared (Zack, 1999). The life cycles of standardization (Tether et al., 2001) and technological change (Anderson and Tushman, 1990) help explain how the level of knowledge codification can vary in standardization. Non-codified knowledge usually emerges at ear- lier stages of standardization when technological uncertainties, trials, and competition among various competing technologies are common. The early stage of a standardization effort can end with the emergence of, for example, a dominant design (Anderson and Tushman, 1990) and the non-codified knowledge partially trans- forms to codified knowledge when the industry standard becomes established. Although studies define standardization and standards differ- ently, they rarely emphasize this distinction, while some studies treat the two terms synonymously. For example, Tassey (2000:588) explains that “standardization represents a codifica- tion of an element of an industry's technology or simply some information relevant to the conduct of economic activity”, while standards are “a set of specifications to which all elements of products, processes, formats, or procedures under its jurisdiction must conform”. These definitions assume that standardization is a knowledge codification process, to assist understanding of the innovations and promote the efficiency of economic activity, especially in highly skilled settings (Bénézech et al., 2001). We argue that merely focusing on codified knowledge under- estimates the role of the capabilities and learning mechanisms accumulated from non-codified knowledge embedded in stan- dardization. Such mechanisms can be developed as part of the process of developing and implementing a standard (Zollo and Winter, 2002), but tend to be neglected in the knowledge codifi- cation process of standardization. In technology industries, for example, the processes of standardization include providing compatible technology, creating a supportive network, developing a dominant brand name, going global, minimizing production cost and investing more than the competitors (Viardot, 2010). In our view, studies have tended to focus merely on the codified knowledge i.e., the process outcome, at the expense of non-codi- fied knowledge that is embedded in the process of standardiza- tion. By ‘embedded’ we mean that the knowledge resides in the “organizing principles, routines and standard operating proce- dures” (Nicholson and Sahay, 2004:337) necessary for the stan- dardization effort. The second dimension of knowledge listed in Table 1 is knowledge complexity, which is the extent to which knowledge can flow and be used independently between people or subunits of firms (Teece, 1986; Winter, 1987). To be understood and used, knowledge with high complexity requires some other knowledge or additional processing. Knowledge with low complexity is stand- alone and can be more easily transferred and used. The literature emphasizes the importance of knowledge complexity in a firm's standardization effort, but fails to delineate how it impacts the type of innovation outcome that is produced. Some studies suggest that high knowledge complexity is cen- tral to standardization (Rysman and Simcoe, 2008; Tassey, 2000; Tether et al., 2001). For example, Yoo et al. (2005) argue that the standardization and innovation in broadband mobile services is driven by the need to integrate complex and diverse technological knowledge. The literature moreover suggests that knowledge embedded in standardization may be composed of different de- grees of complexity. For example, knowledge will likely be less complex when fewer stakeholders are involved, such as a ‘bespoke (one-off, custom-made) service' (Tether et al., 2001), and more complex when the stakeholders involved have different techno- logical, social and economic backgrounds or interests (Yoo et al., 2005). Knowledge complexity is likely to be exacerbated when sustainable development issues are driving innovation (Matos and Hall, 2007; Zollo and Winter, 2002) as is the case in the con- struction industry (discussed below). Narayanana and Chen (2012) reveal, implicitly, that knowledge complexity in standardization has the potential to influence ar- chitectural innovation at the community level (i.e., competing firms and their technological platforms) and modular innovation within the product offerings. These types of innovation come from a classification (modular, radical, incremental and architectural) based on the extent to which the innovation involves new inter- faces between components and or involves new components alone (Henderson and Clark, 1990). These types of innovation are re- levant to the issue of knowledge complexity in standardization which usually determines the interfaces that links components in a product. For example, Kleinsmann et al. (2010) identified dif- ferent collaborative mechanisms within four types of interface from company, project and actor levels in the context of knowl- edge complexity. Standards provide opportunities for changes in the way in which the component knowledge are linked together, while leaving the core component knowledge untouched (Hen- derson and Clark, 1990). 2.2. Standardization efforts from a search perspective As discussed above, the standardization studies listed in Table 1 have placed little emphasis on search processes. This is somewhat surprising given that a key aspect of innovation is that it involves the search for and transfer of new knowledge (Rogers, 2003), or recombining existing ideas or technologies (Schumpeter, 1934). Understanding the search for knowledge and how it is conducted has been recognized as crucial for understanding the innovation process (Miller et al., 2007; Rogers, 2003; Tsai, 2001), as knowl- edge provides the foundation for learning (Cohen and Lenvinth, 1990; Shenkar and Li, 1999). Search is central to innovation and standardization efforts. Drawing on the work of Nelson and Winter (1982), we define search in these contexts as an organization's problem-solving activities that involve the creation and re- combination of technological knowledge. We propose that a search perspective linked to the dimensions of technological knowledge can help reconcile the inconsistencies in the literature focused on standardization and innovation. Dif- ferent types of search activity have been found to influence whether a firm innovates incrementally or radically. For example, Chiang and Hung (2010) argue that search depth could facilitate incremental innovation performance while search scope enhances radical innovation. The reason is that the knowledge features, for example the age of knowledge (Katila and Ahuja, 2002) and learning mechanisms associated with diverse search activities, tend to differ (March, 1991; Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 2001; Chiang Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–78 71
  • 4. and Hung, 2010), leading to varying innovation performances. 3. Methods A case study of a firm that was highly successfully in using standards to innovate effort can advance our understanding of standardization efforts and the role of search processes. Conse- quently, we now describe our methodology and explain why and how we conducted the case study of Vanke. We also explain our approach to data collection and we identified, synthesized and illustrates the different knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes in Vanke's standardization effort. 3.1. Case context and selection We selected the Chinese building sector because it has under- gone a substantial transition, with new approaches to improving energy efficiency and the adoption of information and commu- nication technologies. Although traditionally the building sector has not been considered innovation-intensive, there have been recent measures adopted to improve innovative practices through standards (Saltzman et al., 2008). The Chinese building sector is an interesting and important industry in terms of the need to innovate, as it accounts for almost a third of China's total energy consumption. Such demands are exacerbated by the sheer scale of China's economy and its rapid urbanization. The percentage of the population living in urban areas is expected to increase from 36% in 2000 to an estimated 50% by 2020 (Chen and Shu, 2012). Indeed, an additional 2 billion square meters of newly constructed buildings have been added yearly in China over the last 10 years. Existing buildings currently account for around 40 billion square meters in area, around 95% of them failing to meet the existing requirements for energy-efficient buildings (Kleinsmann et al., 2010). The Chinese government has developed and announced sets of standards to help increase innovative construction. For example, it has encouraged the implementation of Building Information Model (BIM) technology in the life cycle of buildings, which in- cludes design, construction and operations standards. Local gov- ernments have also prepared their own standards for im- plementing BIM. The Chinese government also announced the standard for energy efficient building assessment (GB/T 50668- 2011) in 2011, for building an energy-efficient community. Com- panies that meet the standard can gain tax reductions and ex- emptions from the government. The standard outlines basic as- sessment requirements and different classification levels for building systems including architectural planning, building en- velope, HVAC (Heating, Ventilating and Air Condition), water supply and drainage, power supply and lighting, indoor environ- ment and operation and the management of buildings both re- sidential and public. To keep pace with and satisfy the changing requirements in these areas of building design and construction, firms in the Chinese building sector have had to deliver innovative responses of the right type and at the appropriate speed. However, while most innovation in this sector has been driven by standar- dization efforts, little is known about the efficacy of such innovations. Following Siggelkow (2007), we chose Vanke, one of China's largest property developers, as our case for three reasons. First, Vanke is the leading Chinese company for ‘housing industrializa- tion', their long-term strategy since 1999. Housing industrializa- tion promotes mass off-site prefabrication instead of conventional on-site construction methods. Standardization is a basic premise of housing industrialization. For example, building components have to be standardized to facilitate design, mass off-site prefabrication and assembly on the construction site. Housing industrialization thus not only changes the way to build, it also requires a standardization effort that changes the relationship between the stakeholders involved in the building sector supply chain. These changes may have a substantial impact on other sectors because the building industry has close relationships with for example, the steel industry, forestry, electrical appliance in- dustry, water treatment and even the medical industry. Second, to foster housing industrialization, Vanke has had to initially overcome many disadvantages. These included the high costs of housing industrialization building methods compared with those of conventional building methods, outdated construc- tion technologies and lack of capital, supportive government po- licies and skilled labor in the building sector. Currently, housing industrialization has been accepted by the Chinese government and welcomed by industry. Over the past 16 years, Vanke has thus been at the forefront of developing standards for housing in- dustrialization, providing us with a useful opportunity to explore this phenomenon in the Chinese building sector. Third, the large scale and established industry presence of Vanke is important as it represents a large part of the sector's standardization effort. Vanke is one of the largest real estate de- velopers in China. In 2012, it had approximately 22 billion US dollars of sales revenue (gross) and 31,019 employees, and had developed 14.33 million square meters of building work. The large scale of Vanke helps buffer the company from external contingent factors such as fiscal policies and economic changes to firms, which can disrupt smaller developers. In addition, Vanke has a relatively long history in the Chinese building sector, having launched its business in 1984. Its 30 years of constant operation thus allows us to investigate the formation and dynamics of the capabilities developed by the company. 3.2. Data categories and collection To develop a framework to understand a firm's standardization effort, we sought data regarding the relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation out- comes. Following guidelines for collecting case data by Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2003), we categorised these elements. For ex- ample, in terms of knowledge dimensions the degree of codifica- tion and complexity (low versus high in each case), while relative, can be substantiated. We followed a similar approach for collect- ing data on different search processes and types of innovation. The final four categories and twelve sub-categories of data are pre- sented in Table 2. We collected data for this study from both archival sources and interviews. The archives included annual company reports, cor- porate social responsibility reports, scholarly journals, internal company documents (reports and presentations), national stan- dards, news papers and the autobiographies and other writings of Shi Wang, the founder and current chairman of Vanke. Scholarly journal articles focused on Vanke were obtained from sources such Table 2 Categories and sub-categories of data coding. Categories (4) Subcategories (12) Knowledge Di- mensions (KD) Low com- plexity high codification (LH) High com- plexity high codification (HH) Low com- plexity low codification (LL) High com- plexity low codification (HL) Search Process (SS) Search pro- cess of LH Search pro- cess of HH Search pro- cess of LL Search pro- cess of HL Innovation Type (IT) Incremental Architectural Modular Radical Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–7872
  • 5. as the China National Knowledge Index (CNKI). Autobiographies of the current chairman of Vanke included Wang (2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014a, 2014b). We conducted 28 interviews (telephone and face-to-face) with project and procurement managers, customer service and R&D staff, accounting department representatives and administrators working nationwide at Vanke. We also interviewed government officials and researchers. The interviews lasted between twenty minutes and one and a half hours. We also used additional open- ended questionnaires after the first round of interviews. All in- terviews were conducted between April 2014 and March 2015. 3.3. Data coding and analysis The collected data were coded following guidelines for quali- tative content analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989; Kohlbacher, 2006). De- tailed write-ups of the archival and interview data were produced to ensure intimate familiarity with the case. The data were then sorted into the 4 categories and 12 sub-categories of the dimen- sions of knowledge, search process and innovation outcome, in effect making them variables in our study. This allowed us to make inferences, verifications and a theory guided analysis of the data. Table 3 provides examples of the data coding. Further tables were used to help analyse cross-sectional data and to sequence and organize longitudinal data. The longitudinal data were collected to increase the internal validity of the case study. The data were also divided by source and the patterns that emerged were analysed and compared with those from the in- terviews. When both were consistent, the findings were con- sidered to be stronger and better grounded. When evidence from the two sources conflicted, the evidence was reconciled by either probing the difference or by collecting additional data. For ex- ample, archival data indicated that Vanke planned to apply housing industrialization to all of its projects by 2014. However, interview data from Chongqing indicated that only one project used the technologies of housing industrialization. Further data verified that Vanke had applied different levels of standardization and innovation in different districts, depending on the availability of supporting resources. 4. Findings and typology The findings in this study suggest that a standardization effort is a complex phenomenon shaped by multiple search processes for different dimensions of knowledge and innovation outcomes. This is depicted in a theoretical framework (see Fig. 2) that shows how the two proposed dimensions of knowledge (codification and complexity) combine to produce a typology of four types of search (active, integrative, decentralized and passive) and four types of innovation outcome (modular, radical, incremental and archi- tectural). We now validate and illustrate the typology using the case findings and drawing upon previous research on innovation and standardization. 4.1. Decentralized search and incremental innovations The first type of search and related innovation outcome we discuss occurs when the knowledge in a standardization effort is of low complexity and is highly codified. This creates what we refer to as decentralized search and results in incremental innova- tion outcomes. Decentralized search means that the search is not centrally coordinated by a unit in the organization. The search is autonomously led by different individuals and units, each of which may be tracking a specific aspect of the environment, such as market demand, competitor actions, product and technological innovation, and regulatory updates (McCarthy et al., 2010; Daft and Weick, 1984). Decentralized search is suitable for low com- plexity knowledge especially as the search is typically conducted and controlled by individuals, especially at the executive level (Daft et al., 1988). These individuals serve as the strategic scanning interface between the organization and the external environment. The trip to Brazil's Amazon River Basin in 2008 made by Van- ke's CEO (Shi Wang) is an example decentralized search. The search was not undertaken by a team of analysts. Only Shi Wang was involved as the knowledge complexity was low. The knowl- edge that was acquired was also highly codified in that it could be seen, documented and presented by an individual – it is not rou- tinized and does not involve many interactions within a firm. The resulting innovations are typically incremental and are supposed to provide developmental plasticity or flexibility to the internal and external environments, improving the ability to value external Table 3 Examples of data coding. Coding category Example Low complexity high codification (LH) Knowledge embedded in Shi Wang's trip to Brazil's Amazon River Basin in July, 2008 Search process of LH Information seeking by Shi Wang that a large number of timbers in this area were transported to China and some of them were used on construction sites Incremental innovation Vanke formed a new procurement policy and joined the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN) in 2011 High complexity high codification (HH) Knowledge embedded in the application for the platinum certification of LEED Search process of HH Vanke invited LEED consultants to participate in the whole process of LEED application and work with partners to conduct and prepare relevant documents Architectural innovation The combination of green technology with design, construction, material supply and building operation Low complexity low codification (LL) Knowledge embedded in the R&D center of housing industrialization Search process of LL In addition to investing millions of $US encouraging trial and error to develop standards of housing industrialization, Vanke sent teams overseas to learn, gain experience and become familiar with technologies. More importantly, Vanke had to face suspicious opinions arising from peers on doing so. This is because some people including governors, academics and practi- tioners were not optimistic about the future of housing industrialization in China due to cheap labor, outdated technologies in this sector and lacking of support resources for housing industrialization Modular innovation Vanke applied the standards of housing industrialization in some projects where supporting resources are sufficient High complexity low codification (HL) Knowledge embedded in processes that consistently seek to be innovative, sustainable and aligned with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Search process of HL An integrative search involves search processes interchanging or simultaneously developing a decentralized search, a passive search and an active search. Vanke took a decentralized, passive search to strategically transition by collaborating with high- tech companies such as Baidu, Xiaomi and Tecent, to develop customized products. Vanke also adopted a passive search to enlarge housing industrialization standards to products concerned with social welfare, by exploiting current knowledge Radical innovation The dynamic capabilities developed from an integrative search have helped Vanke maintain a competitive advantage in the building sector for years Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–78 73
  • 6. knowledge. These incremental innovations are minor improve- ments that build on incumbent knowledge (Dewar and Dutton, 1986). In the case of Shi Wang's trip to the Amazon River Basin, the search and knowledge resulted in Vanke becoming a member of the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN) whose aims are to eliminate illegal logging and improve forest management. This helped Vanke identify societal concerns about its practices and pioneer its culture of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). For example, a new procurement policy was adopted to restrict use of non-renewable forest resources for Vanke's operations. The adoption of the procurement policy was relatively straightforward (i.e., an incremental innovation) as it did not require major chan- ges to operational units. The process of forming and applying the procurement policy and joining GFTN diversified Vanke's goal of improving CSR and the sustainability of their operations, while also building the company's flexibility to adapt to the external environment. 4.2. Passive search and architectural innovations The second type of search and innovation outcome we discuss occurs when the knowledge in a standardization effort is highly complex and highly codified. This creates what we refer to as passive search and results in architectural innovation outcomes. By passive we mean a situation where a firm takes whatever in- formation comes its way, which can result in knowledge discovery and transfer efficiencies. However, the potential to receive novel ideas that underlie major solutions tends to be reduced by simply waiting for knowledge to arrive. This is because passive search has inertia and is satisficing in nature i.e., once an organization has received information to meet its requirements, waiting for further and better alternatives is considered time-consuming (March, 1991). Highly complex knowledge in a standardization effort will likely require other complementary knowledge and additional processing to be understood. Therefore, the standardization effort also has to acquire and assimilate this additional knowledge often drawing upon different organizational subunits and external partners. To help mitigate the risk and costs of this complexity, codifying that knowledge is a common approach. Together these factors support a standardization effort suited to producing ar- chitectural innovations. This is because an architectural innovation changes the way in which the components of knowledge are linked together, while leaving the core knowledge untouched (Henderson and Clark, 1990). The capabilities for an architectural innovation include the ability to reconfigure the current structure of a system or to enlarge the current system by taking in new subsystems (Yoo et al., 2005). An example of a passive search and architectural innovation outcome by Vanke is their adoption of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), a third-party certification scheme for assessing green building. LEED measures the environmental performance of various aspects of construction, such as the de- velopment of sustainable architectural designs, water efficiency, energy, materials and resource use, emissions and indoor en- vironmental quality. Adopting LEED certification is an architectural innovation as it requires the use of complex interrelated knowl- edge and coordination of capabilities with suppliers to attain. According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), this typi- cally involves a specified application procedure, and can be com- municated through documentation (high codification). Vanke in- vited LEED consultants to participate during the application pro- cedure and cooperated with partners such as designers and con- struction firms, preparing relevant documents on certification of qualification, construction methods, energy saving, recyclable material, etc. 4.3. Active search and modular innovations The third type of search and innovation outcome in our ty- pology is when the knowledge dimensions have low complexity and low codification. This results in an active search and modular innovation. In contrast to passive search, active search involves allocating resources to vigorously explore, test and shape the en- vironment (Daft et al., 1988). An active search includes sending agents to places and events in the environment (Smith et al., 2010) and engaging in trial and error learning (Daft and Weick, 1984). This type of search suits low complexity knowledge as it is exists independently outside a firm's boundary and requires little in- tegration the firm's existing knowledge (Beckert, 1999). Also, low codified knowledge is suited to experiential learning methods that involve interacting with the environment (Kamp et al., 2004). This is essential for acquiring, forming and applying such knowledge. An example of active search by Vanke is when it established an R&D center in 1999 to develop standards for building components in China. To accumulate knowledge and technologies for housing industrialization, Vanke sent teams of researchers overseas (especially to Japan) to find and internalize the acquired knowl- edge by working with researchers at partner organizations. Vanke has invested millions of U.S. dollars annually in these learning secondments and the R&D center. Active search was an important mechanism for Vanke in overcoming skepticism to its housing industrialization strategy. There was skepticism from the Chinese government and from Vanke's peers in the building sector that this approach might not be suitable for China due to availability of inexpensive, low skilled labor suitable for its outdated construction technologies. Vanke's active search sought innovations and standards that would de- monstrate the viability of the strategy and overcome the skepti- cism. In this respect, an active search tends to be an action or- iented and self-regulating process that helps ensure the firm's standardization effort suits external conditions. The learning from active search typically remains in the teams or sub-units of the firm that undertake the search. Consequently, at the product level this learning promotes modular innovations Fig. 2. Standardization efforts and embedded knowledge dimensions: a typology of search processes and innovation outcomes. Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–7874
  • 7. by changing component knowledge while leaving the product's structural knowledge unchallenged (Henderson and Clark, 1990). At the organizational level, active search and modular innovation has limited impact on routines and systems. Vanke has residential projects nationwide, but the rollout of housing industrialization was initially limited to just Shenzhen and Beijing. It was several years later that this strategy and stan- dardization effort was applied elsewhere, for example in the southwestern city of Chongqing. This restricted rollout of housing industrialization was partly because of the delays in routinizing, institutionalized and standardizing the implementation of the innovations. Also, Vanke applied different levels of housing in- dustrialization in different districts, depending on the availability of supporting resources in the districts. In addition, the Chinese government had not until recently enacted any legislation re- quiring the use of housing industrialization methods in the con- struction industry. The legitimacy of housing industrialization was cemented as Vanke used active search to aggressively develop nine major standards and innovations, which were eventually approved by the Chinese government in March, 2015. Since then all construction projects in China are required to meet the national standards on housing industrialization pioneered by Vanke. 4.4. Integrative search and radical innovations The final search type and innovation outcome in our typology is integrative search and radical innovations, involves embedded knowledge with high complexity and low codification. The search is integrative because it employs and builds on the decentralized, passive and active search types. Integrative search toggles be- tween these different search processes to produce both ex- plorative and exploitative learning (McCarthy and Gordon, 2011). It is suited to environments where the regulations, demand, in- novation and competitive actions in the industry are all changing at different rates and in different directions. This is considered to be a ‘conflicted’ industry dynamic that is unlikely to suit just one type of search process (McCarthy et al., 2010). The embedded knowledge in this case is linked to learning by repetitive operation, as suggested by Nelson and Winter (1982). Hierarchical learning may also be assimilated and gradually ac- cumulated within an organization's memory, becoming a specific part of routines that support dynamic capabilities and the pro- duction of radical innovations (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Dy- namic capabilities are cultivated through the recombination of previous knowledge, and the amalgamation of new and different knowledge vectors. These conditions promote radical innovations that are clear departures from existing knowledge and practices (Dewar and Dutton, 1986). Central to the success of Vanke standardization effort was the company's use of an integrative search. It initially adopted passive search to apply for LEED and develop and standardize green technologies for housing industrialization. Vanke gradually en- larged the implementation of its housing industrialization in- novations to its commercial products, as well as to its social wel- fare projects such as indemnificatory apartments including low- rent, affordable, price-fixed and public rental housing. A plan of quality management, the Panshi Plan, was developed by refining and documenting Vanke's best practice experience from these projects into a set of standards for the whole company. Vanke also conducted decentralized and active searches. It re- cognized the possibility of being overthrown by emerging com- panies in other sectors, such as manufacturing, information and communication technology, and this resulted in the proposed strategic transition of the company from developer to city service provider. In 2014 Vanke organized in-company teams to learn from companies such as Haier (household appliances manufacturer), Alibaba (e-commerce), Tencent (internet service provider), Xiaomi (smartphone manufacturer) and Baidu (internet search engine). The decentralized and active searches opened the potential for Vanke to collaborate with these firms to provide novel products in the Chinese market. For example, Vanke now provides value-added services to customers using the data ser- vices of Baidu. Vanke also collaborated with partners to develop standards and innovations for universal serial bus (USB) plugs, sanitary appliances, air filters and door opening technology using cell phones. The integrative search, dynamic capabilities and ra- dical innovations also led Vanke to restructure the relationships between firms in its supply chain. Vanke initiated a supply chain alliance that included manufacturers, designers, developers, con- struction and home decoration companies as well as research in- stitutions such as Tsinghua University, Tongji University and Tianjin University. 5. Discussion While standardization efforts have been recognized as playing a crucial role in how firms create and profit from innovation, we found that existing empirical research offers inconsistent findings on the relationship between standardization and innovation. To help resolve these inconsistencies and further our understanding of standardization, we examined how degrees of knowledge complexity and codification impact the type of search required and the resulting innovation outcome. We explained how these two dimensions of knowledge combine to produce a typology of four types of search process and four types of associated innova- tion outcome. Using a detailed case study, we illustrated and verified each dimension of our typology. Together the typology and the case study help us to better understand how search im- pacts the inter-play and relationship between standardization and innovation outcomes. 5.1. Implications for the theory and practice We now discuss four major implications of this, which we be- lieve are of relevance to both management practice and future empirical research. First, this study demonstrates that search processes are im- portant to major standardization efforts. In our case study it is clear that multiple types of search were employed to acquire and assimilate different dimensions of knowledge. The processes for gaining this knowledge are at the heart of a standardization effort and the associated innovation outcomes. Our typology and case study show that there is a contingency relationship between standardization, search and innovation outcomes, where one size does not fit all. The quest for different types of knowledge, involves different search approaches that in turn underlie the type of in- novation outcome produced. A second implication of our research is that the case study provides provisional evidence for understanding how standardi- zation efforts can be suited to different types of search process. For example, we find that standardization efforts that employ decen- tralized and passive search processes are positively linked to in- cremental and architectural innovation outcomes. This is due to the knowledge embedded in the standardization effort, which is highly codified and complex. It promotes consensus and re- combination among stakeholders, explaining why a standardiza- tion effort strongly diffuses within the industry (Hashem and Tann, 2007) and in turn shapes the industry structure (Lecocq and Demil, 2006) and its value chain (Yoo et al., 2005). Passive search that involves highly codified knowledge can lead suppliers to lock-in with one another around the resulting Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–78 75
  • 8. standards and innovations (Unruh, 2000), resulting in strong technological trajectories (Dosi, 1982; Smith et al., 2010). In con- trast, when the knowledge in a standardization effort is char- acterized as having low complexity and low codification it suits an active search for modular innovations that involve designing ‘open’ component systems (Tassey, 2000), using trial and error search activities (Daft and Weick, 1984) and conducting field stu- dies (Smith et al., 2010). When the knowledge is characterized as high complexity and low codification it suits integrative search and radical innovation outcomes. As shown in our case study, in- tegrative search involves recombining current relationships be- tween stakeholders and encouraging novel solutions resulting in component systems that disrupt existing product standards and offerings. A third implication is that a single standardization effort can shift between different search processes over time. This is because standardization efforts are complex activities that can take many years to complete; the type of knowledge required during the course of a standardization effort can vary and change. Conse- quently, as found in our case study, there will likely be a pathway of different search processes involved in a major standardization effort. In Fig. 3 we show the search pathway observed in our case study. It begins with decentralized search, followed by active search, passive and then integrative search. The knowledge char- acteristics for decentralized search provide the starting point in this pathway. The standardization effort begins with the search for simple codifiable knowledge that often focuses on identifying obvious gaps and needs to be addressed by the standardization effort. An active search follows, as any lack of knowledge codifi- cation requires a more skilled and costly search process to identify, understand, assimilate and exploit the knowledge. Next is passive search, as the efficiency of the investments in search become more important and firms seek more explicit standards and complex solutions to suit market needs. The final search in the pathway is integrative. It is the most sophisticated, impactful, but difficult form of search. The pathway of search types reflects the learning and capabilities that prepare firms to undertake integrative search and pursue radical innovation outcomes. This concept of a learning pathway is what McCarthy et al. (2006: 440) refer to as “a ladder of abstraction” for interpreting and managing different and higher order types of search for different types of innovation outcome. We thus suggest that a more strategic orientation towards stan- dards can prevent inhibiting creativity and unnecessary delays as identified by Hamel (2006) and Hill and Rothaermel (2003). A fourth implication concerns managerial efforts in practice. If management's goal is primarily incremental and/or architectural innovation, it should be expected that the knowledge will be standardized, and that decentralized and passive search processes can be used. If the managerial objective is concerned with modular and/or radical innovations, the knowledge will not likely be standardized, and as a result active and integrative search pro- cesses are appropriate. For company and government policies, if decentralized and passive searches in the standardization efforts are performed, incremental and architectural innovation are ex- pected. To foster radical and modular innovations, it is necessary to enable active and integrative search processes. 5.2. Imitations of this study Some limitations of this study and related opportunities for future research are worth noting. While our case study allowed us to explore deeply the activ- ities, events and interactions of a major standardization effort, like all case studies, the generalizability of our finding maybe re- stricted. For example, as the search pathway in Fig. 3 is based on the standardization effort of just one case (Vanke), it is likely there could be alternative viable pathways. These would involve some or all of the search processes but in different orders, and thus the different pathways will suit different standardization efforts. The matching of a standardization effort with a given pathway will likely be determined by the knowledge complexity and codifica- tion as well as the innovation context in terms of factors such as time scales, complexity, regulations and costs. For example, the rapid development of code division multiple access (CDMA) standards for radio communication technologies in Korea would have a known innovation outcome that could involve a different search pathway. The importance of the pace of innovation to a search pathway is supported by Hill and Rothaermel (2003) who claim that standardization efforts postpone the gestation period between invention and successful commercialization. While it can be argued that our findings may be less applicable to firms in other industries, the value of the typology and findings are grounded in prior theories and research. Furthermore, as this particular industry setting has traditionally not been considered innovation-intensive, we speculate that our typology is likely to have even greater relevance for settings where innovation is fast changing and core to sustained competitive advantage. This should help motivate and make it easier for scholars to apply the typology and ideas to other industry contexts. Another limitation of this research is that our case was focused on a successful case of a standardization effort that resulted in industry leadership. We recognize that not all standardization ef- forts will result in similar competitive advantages. Indeed, it would be fruitful to explore cases where such efforts resulted in a downward competitive trajectory, for example by creating bu- reaucratic inefficiencies or commoditizing of the industry, as was the case for nuts, bolts and screws. 6. Conclusion The benefits and challenges of standardization have captured the attention of managers and scholars, yet the empirical findings on the impact of standardization on innovation are inconsistent. Focusing on a standardization effort (i.e., when a firm pursues standards to further innovation), our work draws upon onFig. 3. Pathway of search processes involved in a standardization effort. Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–7876
  • 9. research on the importance of search processes for innovation and adopts a contingency approach to standardization effort, search process and innovation outcome relationships. To examine these relationships we developed a typology that provides a descriptive, explanatory and predictive framework for researchers to examine the diversity and impact of different standardization efforts. An important implication is that standardization efforts need to be seen as a long-term strategic initiatives that drive the creation and adoption of standards and innovations. If the search processes and resulting standards are not coordinated in pursuit of an innovation goal, then the risk is the effort will be a collection of disconnected standardization exercises that result in bureaucratic inefficiencies, commoditization or the stifling of creativity. Acknowledgments This research was partly supported by the Humanity and Social Science Youth foundation of Chinese Ministry Education (13YJC630189) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Cen- tral Universities (2015CDJXY). The authors are grateful to people who helped in undertaking the research and making improve- ments to this article. We would also like to thank the editors and reviewers of Technovation for their insightful comments and feedback on this research. Reference Anderson, P., Tushman, M.L., 1990. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 604–633. Bénézech, D., Lambert, G., Lanoux, B., Lerch, C., Loos-Baroin, J., 2001. Completion of knowledge codification: an illustration through the ISO 9000 standards im- plementation process. Res. Policy 30, 1395–1407. Beckert, J., 1999. Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change. The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organ. Stud. (Walter De. Gruyter GmbH Co. KG.) 20, 777–799. Chen, L., Shu, Q., 2012. Platform design on building energy-saving monitoring and management system. Autom. Instrum. 10, 42–44. Chiang, Y.-H., Hung, K.-P., 2010. Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowl- edge flows. R&D Manag. 40, 292–299. Cillo, P., Verona, G., 2008. Search styles in style searching: exploring innovation strategies in fashion firms. Long Range Plan. 41, 650–671. Cohen, M.W., Lenvinth, A.D., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 128–152. Daft, R.L., Weick, K.E., 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Acad. Manag. Rev. 9, 284–295. Daft, R.L., Sormunen, J., Don, P., 1988. Chief executive scanning, environmental characteristics, and company performance: an empirical study. Strateg. Manag. J. 9, 123–139. Damanpour, F., 1991. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of de- terminants and moderators. Acad. Manag. J. 34, 555–590. Dewar, R.D., Dutton, J.E., 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innova- tions: an empirical analysis. Manag. Sci. 32, 1422–1433. Dolfsma, W., Seo, D., 2013. Government policy and technological innovation – a suggested typology. Technovation 33, 173–179. Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 11, 147–162. Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 532–550. Fabrizio, K.R., 2009. Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Res. Policy 38, 255–267. Gao, P., Yu, J., Lyytinen, K., 2014. Government in standardization in the catching-up context: case of China’s mobile system. Telecommun. Policy 38, 200–209. Gilson, L.L., Mathieu, J.E., Shalley, C.E., Ruddy, T.M., 2005. Creativity and standar- dization: complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Acad. Manag. J. 48, 521–531. Grøtnes, E., 2009. Standardization as open innovation: two cases from the mobile industry. Info. Technol. People 22, 367–381. Greve, H.R., 2003. A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: evi- dence from shipbuilding. Acad. Manag. J. 46, 685–702. Groesser, S.N., 2014. Co-evolution of legal and voluntary standards: development of energy efficiency in Swiss residential building codes. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 87, 1–16. Hamel, G., 2006. The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84, 72–84. Hashem, G., Tann, J., 2007. The adoption of ISO 9000 standards within the Egyptian context: a diffusion of innovation approach. Total Qual. Manag. 18, 631–652. Henderson, R.M., Clark, K.B., 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 9–30. Hill, C.W.L., Rothaermel, F.T., 2003. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28, 257–274. Hippel, E.v., Franke, N., Prügl, R., 2009. Pyramiding: efficient search for rare sub- jects. Research Policy 38, 1397–1406. Hytönen, H., Jarimo, T., Salo, A., Yli-Juuti, E., 2013. Markets for standardized tech- nologies:patent licensing with principle of proportionality. Technovation 32, 523–535. Jeppesen, L.B., Lakhani, K.R., 2010. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ. Sci. 21 (5), 1016–1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.1090.0491. Kamp, L.M., Smits, R.E.H.M., Andriesse, C.D., 2004. Notions on learning applied to wind turbine development in the Netherlands and Denmark. Energy Policy 32, 1625–1637. Kano, S., 2000. Technical innovations, standardization and regional comparison – a case study in mobile communications. Telecommun. Policy 24, 305–321. Katila, R., Ahuja, G., 2002. Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 1183–1194. Kleinsmann, M., Buijs, J., Valkenburg, R., 2010. Understanding the complexity of knowledge integration in collaborative new product development teams: a case study. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 27, 20–32. Laursen, K., Salter, A., 2004. Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Res. Policy 33, 1201–1215. Lecocq, X., Demil, B., 2006. Strategizing industry structure: the case of open systems in a low-tech industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 27, 891–898. Leiponen, A.E., 2008. Competing through cooperation: the organization of standard setting in wireless telecommunications. Manag. Sci. 54, 1904–1919. Lopez-Berzosa, D., Gawer, A., 2014. Innovation policy within private collectives: evidence on 3GPP’s regulation mechanisms to facilitate collective innovation. Technovation 34, 734–745. Mahdi, S., 2003. Search strategy in product innovation process: theory and evi- dence from the evolution of agrochemical lead discovery process. Ind. Corp. Change 12, 235–270. March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2, 71–87. Matos, S., Hall, J., 2007. Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: the case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology. J. Oper. Manag. 25, 1083–1102. McCarthy, I.P., Gordon, B.R., 2011. Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D or- ganizations: a management control system approach. R&D Manag. 41, 240–258. McCarthy, I.P., Tsinopoulos, C., Allen, P., Anderssen, C.R., 2006. New product de- velopment as a complex adaptive system of decisions. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 23, 437–456. McCarthy, I.P., Lawrence, T.B., Wixted, B., Gordon, B.R., 2010. A multidimensional conceptualization of environmental velocity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 604–626. Miller, D.J., Fern, M.J., Cardinal, L.B., 2007. The use of knowledge for technilogical innovation within diversified firms. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 307–326. Narayanana, V.K., Chen, T., 2012. Research on technology standards: accomplish- ment and challenges. Res. Policy 41, 1375–1406. Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Press of Harvard University Press, The Belknap, United Kingdom. Nicholson, B., Sahay, S., 2004. Embedded knowledge and offshore software devel- opment. Info. Organ. 14, 329–365. Rogers, E., 2003. The Diffusion of Innovation. Free Press, New York. Rosenkopf, L., Nerkar, A., 2001. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, explora- tion, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 22, 287. Rosenkopf, L., Almeida, P., 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Manag. Sci. 49, 751–766. Rysman, M., Simcoe, T., 2008. Patents and the performance of voluntary standard- setting organizations. Manag. Sci. 54, 1920–1934. Saltzman, J., Chatterjee, S., Raman, M., 2008. A framework for ICT standards crea- tion: the case of ITU-T standard H.350. Info. Syst. 33, 285–299. Schumpeter, J.A., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, United States. Shenkar, O., Li, J., 1999. Knowledge search in international cooperative ventures. Organ. Sci. 10, 134–143. Sherif, M.H., 2006. Standards for telecommunications services. In: Jakobs, K. (Ed.), Advanced Topics in Information Technology Standards and Standardization Research.. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 183–205. Siggelkow, N., 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 20–24. Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., Grin, J., 2010. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res. Policy 39, 435–448. Tassey, G., 2000. Standardization in technology-based markets. Res. Policy 29, 587–602. Teece, D.J., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for in- tegration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15, 285–305. Tether, B.S., Hipp, C., Miles, I., 2001. Standardisation and particularisation in ser- vices: evidence from Germany. Res. Policy, 1115–1138. Tsai, W., 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–78 77
  • 10. performance. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 996–1004. Tushman, M.L., O’Reilly, C.A., 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolu- tionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Manag. Rev. 38, 8–30. Unruh, G.C., 2000. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28, 817–830. Utterback, J.M., 1996. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, United States. Viardot, E., 2010. Achieving market leadership: the next challenge for technology firms from growing countries. J. Technol. Manag. Grow. Econ. 1, 9–28. Wang, S., 2012a. Process and Retreat Which Influenced My Life. Zhengjiang Uni- versity Press, China. Wang, S., 2012b. Success is Challenging Yourself. Lianhe Press, Beijing. Wang, S., 2013. My Success Comes When People Don’t Need Me Anymore. Zhengjiang University Press, China. Wang, S., 2014a. Da Dao Dang Ran, Vanke and Me (2000–2013). CITIC Press, China. Wang, S., 2014b. Road and Dream, Vanke and Me (1983–1999). CITIC Press, China. Winter, S.G., 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In: Teece, D.J. (Ed.), The Competitive Challenge. Ballinger, MA, Cambridge, pp. 159–184. Wrighta, C., Sturdyb, A., Wyliec, N., 2012. Management innovation through stan- dardization: consultants as standardizers of organizational practice. Res. Policy 41, 652–662. Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE, United Kingdom. Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K., Yang, H., 2005. The role of standards in innovation and dif- fusion of broadband mobile services: the case of South Korea. J. Strateg. Info. Syst. 25, 323–353. Zack, M.H., 1999. Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Manag. Rev. 40, 45–58. Zollo, M., Winter, S.G., 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ. Sci., 13. Z. Xie et al. / Technovation 48-49 (2016) 69–7878