Technological Innovation Research: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach

Yu Sun, Zhaoyuan Yu, Ling Li, Yong Chen, Mikhail Yu Kataev, Haiqing Yu, Hecheng Wang

Source Title: Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM)29(6)

ISSN: 1062-7375|EISSN: 1533-7995|EISBN13: 9781799872627|DOI: 10.4018/JGIM.20211101.oa32

MLA

Sun, Yu, et al. "Technological Innovation Research: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach." JGIM vol.29, no.6 2021: pp.1-22. http://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.20211101.oa32

APA

Sun, Y., Yu, Z., Li, L., Chen, Y., Kataev, M. Y., Yu, H., & Wang, H. (2021). Technological Innovation Research: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 29(6), 1-22. http://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.20211101.oa32

Chicago

Sun, Yu, et al. "Technological Innovation Research: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach," Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM) 29, no.6: 1-22. http://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.20211101.oa32

Export Reference

Favorite Full-Issue Download

View Full Text HTML

View Full Text PDF

Abstract

The paper explores the relationship among technological innovation, technological trajectory transition, and firms’ innovation performance. Technological innovation is studied from the perspectives of innovation novelty and innovation openness. Technological trajectory transition is categorized into creative cumulative technological trajectory transition and creative disruptive technological trajectory transition. A structural equation model is developed and tested with data collected by surveying 366 Chinese firms. The results indicate that both innovation novelty and innovation openness positively affects creative cumulative technological trajectory transition as well as creative disruptive technological trajectory transition. Innovation openness and creative disruptive technological trajectory transition both positively affect firms’ innovation performance. However, neither innovation novelty nor creative cumulative technological trajectory transition positively affects firms’ innovation performance. Implications for managers and directions for future studies are discussed.