Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Together or separately? Direct and synergistic effects of Effectuation and Causation on innovation in technology-based SMEs

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technology-based SMEs develop their activity in changing environments with strong competitive pressures. These conditions make them much more likely to innovate but also make the innovative process more challenging due to greater complexity of decisions about resources and establishment of actions to achieve favorable innovation results. Although prior studies have analyzed diverse factors that impact the innovative dynamics of this type of firm, little advance has been made in exploring the problem from the perspective of decision-making. This study seeks to close this research gap using Effectuation Theory, one of the most-cited theories emerging in the field of entrepreneurship. More specifically, we analyze the use of causal and effectual decision-making logics to evaluate their direct and ambidextrous effects on innovation in technology-based SMEs. Our results provide evidence that not just one path, but rather a pool of alternatives, supports product and process innovation development. More specifically, when technology SMEs pursue product innovation, both effectuation and causation can be used as predominant mechanisms to achieve positive innovation results. If firms also seek to develop process innovations, however, they may obtain better results with an ambidextrous approach.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. SABI stores economic, financial, operating, human resources, property, and management information on over a million Spanish firms.

  2. Computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) is a survey technique in which interviewers follow script provided by a software application. The software personalizes questionnaire flows based on responses or on information previously collected on the respondent.

References

  • Aldrich, H., Auster, E. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior.

  • Andries, P., Debackere, K., & Van Looy, B. (2013). Simultaneous experimentation as a learning strategy: Business model development under uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(4), 288–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelhoff, D., Mauer, R., Collewaert, V., & Brettel, M. (2016). The conflict potential of the entrepreneur’s decision-making style in the entrepreneur-investor relationship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 601–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H. (2004). Strategic decision comprehensiveness and new product development outcomes in new technology ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 583–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aziz, H., Gao, J., Maropoulos, P., & Cheung, W. (2005). Open standard, open source and peer-to-peer tools and methods for collaborative product development. Computers in Industry, 56(3), 260–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., & Nelson, R. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berends, H., Jelinek, M., Reymen, I., & Stultiëns, R. (2014). Product innovation processes in small firms: Combining entrepreneurial effectuation and managerial causation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 616–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biazzo, S. (2009). Flexibility, structuration, and simultaneity in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(3), 336–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L., III. (1985). Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty, and economic performance in volatile environments. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 548–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brettel, M., Mauer, R., Engelen, A., & Küpper, D. (2012). Corporate effectuation: Entrepreneurial action and its impact on R&D project performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 167–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D., & Kapsa, D. (2010). Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning–performance relationship in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 24–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinckmann, J., Salomo, S., & Gemuenden, H. (2011). Financial management competence of founding teams and growth of new technology-based firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2), 217–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buganza, T., Gerst, M., & Verganti, R. (2010). Adoption of NPD flexibility practices in new technology-based firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(1), 62–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, L., Guo, R., Fei, Y., & Liu, Z. (2017). Effectuation, exploratory learning and new venture performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(3), 388–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R., Garcia, R., & Dröge, C. (2003). The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 90–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G., DeTienne, D., McKelvie, A., & Mumford, T. (2011). Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 375–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, J. P., & Vermeulen, P. A. (2006). Determinants of product innovation in small firms: A comparison across industries. International Small Business Journal, 24(6), 587–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, J., & Hulsink, W. (2012). Patterns of innovating networking in small firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 280–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Massis, A., Audretsch, D., Uhlaner, L., & Kammerlander, N. (2018). Innovation with limited resources: Management lessons from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(1), 125–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado-Verde, M., Martín-de Castro, G., & Amores-Salvadó, J. (2016). Intellectual capital and radical innovation: Exploring the quadratic effects in technology-based manufacturing firms. Technovation, 54, 35–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deligianni, I., Voudouris, I., & Lioukas, S. (2017). Do effectuation processes shape the relationship between product diversification and performance in new ventures? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 349–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2003). Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 24(12), 1165–1185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S., & Wiltbank, R. (2008). Outlines of a behavioral theory of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66(1), 37–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dew, N., Read, S., Sarasvathy, S., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: Differences between experts and novices. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 287–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, T., Delbridge, R., & Munday, M. (2005). Understanding innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A process manifest. Technovation, 25(10), 1119–1127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K., Schoonhoven, C. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988. Administrative Science Quarterly 504-529.

  • Eisenhardt, K., & Schoonhoven, C. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7(2), 136–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filippou, D., & King, M. (2011). R&D prospects in the mining and metals industry. Resources Policy, 36(3), 276–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freel, M. (2000). Strategy and structure in innovative manufacturing SMEs: The case of an English region. Small Business Economics, 15(1), 27–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiling, J. (2008). RBV y the road to the control of external organizations. Management Revue, 33–52.

  • Frishammar, J., Kurkkio, M., Abrahamsson, L., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of firms’ process innovation capability: A literature review and a conceptual framework. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., 59(4), 519–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futterer, F., Schmidt, J., & Heidenreich, S. (2018). Effectuation or causation as the key to corporate venture success? Investigating effects of entrepreneurial behaviors on business model innovation and venture performance. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 64–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgsdottir, A., & Getz, I. (2004). How flexibility facilitates innovation and ways to manage it in organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(3), 166–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedhuys, M., & Veugelers, R. (2012). Innovation strategies, process and product innovations and growth: Firm-level evidence from Brazil. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23(4), 516–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1994). Patterns of generation and adoption of innovation in organizations: Contingency models of innovation attributes. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 11(2), 95–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorkhali, A., & Xu, L. (2016). Enterprise application integration in industrial integration: A literature review. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management, 1(04), 1650014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, R. (2018). Strategic decision-making logics, entrepreneurial capability and opportunity exploitation in high-tech new ventures. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 19(2), 235–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, R. (2019). Effectuation, opportunity shaping and innovation strategy in hightech new ventures. Management Decision, 57(1), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2017-0799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, R., Cai, L., & Zhang, W. (2016). Effectuation and causation in new internet venture growth: The mediating effect of resource bundling strategy. Internet Research, 26(2), 460–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler, C., Patzelt, H., & Zahra, S. (2012). Strategic alliances and product development in high technology new firms: The moderating effect of technological capabilities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 217–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2013). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition. Pearson Higher Ed.

  • Hall, J., & Martin, M. (2005). Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain: A framework for evaluating radical technology development. R&D Management, 35(3), 273–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., Matos, S., Silvestre, B., & Martin, M. (2011). Managing technological and social uncertainties of innovation: The evolution of Brazilian energy and agriculture. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(7), 1147–1157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmieleski, K., & Corbett, A. (2008). The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behavior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur work satisfaction. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), 482–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, M., Smart, A., & Bourne, M. (2001). Theory and practice in SME performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(8), 1096–1115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaafari, A. (2001). Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: Time for a fundamental shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19(2), 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalonen, H. (2012). The uncertainty of innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Research, 4(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayaram, J., Oke, A., & Prajogo, D. (2014). The antecedents and consequences of product and process innovation strategy implementation in Australian manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Research, 52(15), 4424–4439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey Thieme, R., Michael Song, X., & Shin, G. (2003). Project management characteristics and new product survival. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 104–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, A., & Clausen, T. H. (2017). Origins and emergence of exploration and exploitation capabilities in new technology-based firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 163–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamuriwo, D., Baden-Fuller, C., & Zhang, J. (2017). Knowledge development approaches and breakthrough innovations in technology-based new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(4), 492–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 319–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, R., Martin, X., & Noorderhaven, N. (2006). When does trust matter to alliance performance? Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 894–917.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lager, T., & Frishammar, J. (2012). Collaborative development of new process technology/equipment in the process industries: In search of enhanced innovation performance. Journal of Business Chemistry, 9(2), 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laine, I., & Galkina, T. (2017). The interplay of effectuation and causation in decision making: Russian SMEs under institutional uncertainty. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(3), 905–941.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2001). Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1123–1134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lievens, A., & Moenaert, R. (2000). Project team communication in financial service innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 37(5), 733–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormack, A., Verganti, R., & Iansiti, M. (2001). Developing products on “Internet time”: The anatomy of a flexible development process. Management Science, 47(1), 133–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maine, E., Lubik, S., & Garnsey, E. (2012). Process-based vs. product-based innovation: Value creation by nanotech ventures. Technovation, 32(3–4), 179–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matalamäki, M. J. (2017). Effectuation, an emerging theory of entrepreneurship–towards a mature stage of the development. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doi.org_10.1108_JSBED-2D02-2D2017-2D0030&d=DwIDaQ&c=vh6FgFnduejNhPPD0fl_yRaSfZy8CWbWnIf4XJhSqx8&r=Cmq-n03pNUye_hV18N4x07vilvJxUyMNx0Lvgddl9Ts&m=OxY4WeM4MeY3YpdoNQ1QyQKT5j_otVYSEFwsD5D1QOY&s=ZLHsiJYzZepOQWUPzR0pyeotLmLz93tXol-OZU22M4Y&e=

  • Mauer, R., Wuebker, R., Schlüter, J., & Brettel, M. (2018). Prediction y control: An agent-based simulation of search processes in the entrepreneurial problem space. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2), 237–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvie, A., Haynie, J., & Gustavsson, V. (2011). Unpacking the uncertainty construct: Implications for entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 273–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C. (1995). Organizational market information processes: Cultural antecedents and new product outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 318–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. (1998). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naveh, E. (2007). Formality and discretion in successful R&D projects. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 110–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaou, N., Lockett, A., Ucbasaran, D., & Rees, G. (2019). Exploring the potential and limits of a neuroscientific approach to entrepreneurship. International Small Business Journal, 37(6), 557–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nummela, N., Saarenketo, S., Jokela, P., & Loane, S. (2014). Strategic decision-making of a born global: A comparative study from three small open economies. Management International Review, 54(4), 527–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). The measurement of scientific and technological activities: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data: Oslo Manual (4th ed.). Paris: Working Party of National Experts on Scientific and Technology Indicators, OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Regan, N., & Ghobadian, A. (2005). Innovation in SMEs: The impact of strategic orientation and environmental perceptions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(2), 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parida, V., & Örtqvist, D. (2015). Interactive effects of network capability, ICT capability, and financial slack on technology-based small firm innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 53, 278–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parida, V., George, N. M., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2016). Influence of subjective interpretation, la causación, y la efectuación on initial venture sale. Journal of business Research, 69(11), 4815–4819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parida, V., Westerberg, M., & Frishammar, J. (2012). Inbound open innovation activities in high-tech SMEs: The impact on innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 283–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J., Chandler, G., & Markova, G. (2012). Entrepreneurial effectuation: A review and suggestions for future research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 837–861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prajogo, D. (2016). The strategic fit between innovation strategies and business environment in delivering business performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 241–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prajogo, D., & McDermott, C. (2014). Antecedents of service innovation in SMEs: Comparing the effects of external and internal factors. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(3), 521–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prajogo, D., & Sohal, A. (2006). The relationship between organization strategy, total quality management (TQM), and organization performance: The mediating role of TQM. European Journal of Operational Research, 168(1), 35–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2005). Knowing what to do and doing what you know: Effectuation as a form of entrepreneurial expertise. The Journal of Private Equity, 9(1), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, S., Song, M., & Smit, W. (2009). A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(6), 573–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Wiltbank, R. (2015). Unreasonable assumptions in ASB. Detail of discussion in Read, Sarasvathy, Dew & Wiltbank (2016). Retrieved from http://www.effectuation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/amr_asb_assumptions_detailed-1.pdf.

  • Read, S., Sarasvathy, S., Dew, N., & Wiltbank, R. (2016). Respond to arend et al: co-creating effectual entrepreneurship research. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 528–536. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0180.

  • Reymen, I. M., Andries, P., Berends, H., Mauer, R., Stephan, U., & Van Burg, E. (2015). Understanding dynamics of strategic decision making in venture creation: A process study of effectuation and causation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 351–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reymen, I., Berends, H., Oudehand, R., & Stultiëns, R. (2017). Decision making for business model development: A process study of effectuation and causation in new technology-based ventures. R&D Management, 47(4), 595–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, D., Ryman, J., & Makani, J. (2016). Effectuation, innovation and performance in SMEs: An empirical study. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(2), 214–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomo, S., Weise, J., & Gemünden, H. (2007). NPD planning activities and innovation performance: The mediating role of process management and the moderating effect of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4), 285–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, A. M., & Elola, L. N. (1991). Product innovation management in Spain. Journal of Product Innovation Management: an International Publication of the Product Development & Management Association, 8(1), 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarasvathy, S., Dew, N., Read, S., & Wiltbank, R. (2008). Designing organizations that design environments: Lessons from entrepreneurial expertise. Organization Studies, 29(3), 331–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarasvathy, S., Kumar, K., York, J., & Bhagavatula, S. (2014). An effectual approach to international entrepreneurship: Overlaps, challenges, and provocative possibilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 71–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of management studies, 46(5), 864–894. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__doi.org_10.1111_j.1467-2D6486.2009.00841.x&d=DwIDaQ&c=vh6FgFnduejNhPPD0fl_yRaSfZy8CWbWnIf4XJhSqx8&r=Cmq-n03pNUye_hV18N4x07vilvJxUyMNx0Lvgddl9Ts&m=OxY4WeM4MeY3YpdoNQ1QyQKT5j_otVYSEFwsD5D1QOY&s=iRvKE3LuwRzX4eQ6o2dJpmrjxadsVwc4tDC48QNEs8g&e=

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390–1412.

  • Sitoh, M., Pan, S., & Yu, C. (2014). Business models and tactics in new product creation: The interplay of effectuation and causation processes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 61(2), 213–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjödin, D. (2019). Knowledge processing and ecosystem co-creation for process innovation: Managing joint knowledge processing in process innovation projects. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(1), 135–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjödin, D., Eriksson, P., & Frishammar, J. (2011). Open innovation in process industries: A lifecycle perspective on development of process equipment. International Journal of Technology Management, 56(2/3/4), 225–240.

  • Sjödin, D., Frishammar, J., & Eriksson, P. (2016). Managing uncertainty and equivocality in joint process development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 39, 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolka, K., Verheul, I., Burmeister-Lamp, K., & Heugens, P. (2018). Get it together! Synergistic effects of causal and effectual decision-making logics on venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(4), 571–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. (2018). Slack resources, exploratory and exploitative innovation and the performance of small technology-based firms at incubators. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1213–1231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, S., Loch, C., & Dong, J. (2009). Managing complexity and unforeseeable uncertainty in startup companies: An empirical study. Organization Science, 20(1), 118–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, M., Im, S., Bij, H., & Song, L. (2011). Does strategic planning enhance or impede innovation and firm performance? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(4), 503–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sońta-Drączkowska, E., Mrożewski, M. (2019). Exploring the role of project management in product development of new technology-based firms. Project Management Journal 8756972819851939.

  • Spanos, Y., & Lioukas, S. (2001). An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: Contrasting Porter’s competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 907–934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, A., & Kirchhoff, B. (2006). Schumpeter and new technology based firms: Towards a framework for how NTBFs cause creative destruction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(2), 145–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, W., Jr., & Roth, P. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 97–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatikonda, M., & Montoya-Weiss, M. (2001). Integrating operations and marketing perspectives of product innovation: The influence of organizational process factors and capabilities on development performance. Management Science, 47(1), 151–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: Environment, organization and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 169–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas, M. (2008). Customer preference discontinuities: A trigger for radical technological change. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(2–3), 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upton, D. (1994). The management of manufacturing flexibility. California Management Review, 36(2), 72–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organization Science, 16(3), 203–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Chen, W. (2010). Is firm-specific innovation associated with greater value appropriation? The roles of environmental dynamism and technological diversity. Research Policy, 39(1), 141–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiltbank, R., Dew, N., Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. (2006). What to do next? The case for non-predictive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27(10), 981–998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 587–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, X., Tao, Y., Tao, X., Xia, F., & Li, Y. (2018). Managing uncertainty in emerging economies: The interaction effects between causation and effectuation on firm performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 121–131.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Competitiveness (Ref.: ECO2016-80677-R) and European Union (FEDER Grant).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Alzamora-Ruiz.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alzamora-Ruiz, J., del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, M. & Martinez-Fiestas, M. Together or separately? Direct and synergistic effects of Effectuation and Causation on innovation in technology-based SMEs. Int Entrep Manag J 17, 1917–1943 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00743-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00743-9

Keywords

Navigation