Innovation strategies and firm performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Innovation is often seen as crucial for firm survival and as a way for firms to differentiate themselves from their rivals. However, innovation studies are vague about the actual importance of different innovation strategies. In this study, we distinguish between pure product, process, organizational, and marketing innovations and their combinations. We use a (balanced) panel data set with more than 15,000 firm-year observations for manufacturing firms to analyze the performance of firms with different innovation strategies. Additionally, we investigate from a societal perspective whether innovation facilitates less efficient firms to catch up, or whether firms already utilizing best practices are the main beneficiaries. Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), we find the highest increase in firms’ performance among the firms with innovation strategies that combine product innovation with other innovation types. This finding applies to both the short and the longer term. We also conclude that catch-up is strongest among the firms adopting pure process innovation, whereas the other innovation strategies are primarily associated with frontiers shifts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it