Informador Técnico
ISSN: 2256-5035 (Electrónico)
ISSN: 0122-056X (Impreso)
Formato: Electrónico / Acceso Abierto
Frecuencia: Números Semestrales
Revisión por Pares: Doble Ciego
Palabras clave
Innovation projects
SENA
manufacturing companies
organizational ambidexterity
exploitation
exploration
co-exploitation
co-exploration proyectos de innovación
SENA
empresas de manufactura
ambidestreza organizacional
explotación
exploración
co-explotación co-exploración.
SENA
manufacturing companies
organizational ambidexterity
exploitation
exploration
co-exploitation
co-exploration proyectos de innovación
SENA
empresas de manufactura
ambidestreza organizacional
explotación
exploración
co-explotación co-exploración.
Cómo citar
Solís-Molina, M., Hernández-Espallardo, M., & Rodríguez-Orejuela, A. (2017). Impacto del SENA en la innovación de las empresas manufactureras en Colombia: Una mirada desde la ambidestreza organizacional. Informador Técnico, 81(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.23850/22565035.712
Resumen
El Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje - SENA es una entidad de formación profesional integral de tecnólogos y técnicos laborales en Colombia. También lleva a cabo la prestación de servicios tecnológicos y participa en proyectos de innovación. En este sentido, la presente investigación aborda si la colaboración con el SENA en proyectos de innovación tiene efectos significativos en las capacidades y desempeño de las empresas manufactureras, mediante un estudio empírico a partir de una muestra de 281 empresas. Para ello, se usa como marco de referencia el paradigma de la ambidestreza organizacional, el cual plantea que las organizaciones pueden llevar a cabo actividades de innovación de explotación y exploración
simultáneamente para obtener un mejor desempeño. En el presente estudio se utiliza la Teoría de la firma basada en el conocimiento, la Teoría de recursos y capacidades, y la Teoría de los costos de transacción para estudiar la colaboración. Los resultados obtenidos sugieren que las empresas que colaboran para innovar en actividades de explotación con el SENA tienen mayores capacidades en exploración, capacidad de alianzas, co-explotación, coexploración y desempeño en términos de rentabilidad que las que no. En cuanto a aquellas empresas que colaboran para innovar en actividades de exploración con el SENA tienen mayores capacidades de exploración, capacidad de alianzas, co-explotación, co-exploración y desempeño en términos de rentabilidad y ventas que las que no. Esto es relevante, ya que las empresas pueden considerar las alianzas de colaboración para innovar con el SENA como una alternativa para mejorar sus capacidades y desempeño.
Citas
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization science, 10(1), 43-68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.43
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.61
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2003.9416096
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 decade-award --”Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited” Ten years later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 497-514. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0042
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of marketing research, 44(2), 175-184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175
Biao, S., & Yi-Ju, L. (2014). Achieving alliance ambidexterity through managing paradoxes of cooperation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(2), 144-165. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2013-0011
Bstieler, L. (2006). Trust Formation in Collaborative New Product Development*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 56-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00181.x
Chen, Y.-S., Lin, M.-J. J., & Chang, C.-H. (2009). The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(2), 152-158. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.12.003
DANE. (2011). Encuesta de Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica en la Industria Manufacturera ´EDIT V´ 2009-2010. Bogotá D.C. : DANE Recuperado de https://formularios. d a n e . g o v . c o / A n d a _ 4 _ 1 / i n d e x . p h p /catalog/218.
DANE. (2013). Encuesta de Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica en la Industria Manufacturera ´EDIT VI´ 2011-2012. Bogotá D.C.: DANE Recuperado de https://formularios.dane.gov.co/Anda_4_1/index.php/catalog/357.
Draulans, J., & Volberda, H. W. (2003). Building alliance capability: Management techniques for superior alliance performance. Long Range Planning, 36(2), 151-166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(02)00173-5
Easterby-Smith, M., & Prieto, I. M. (2008). Dynamic Capabilities and Knowledge Management: an Integrative Role for Learning?*. British Journal of Management, 19(3), 235-249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00543.x
Faems, D., Janssens, M., & Neyens, I. (2012). Alliance Portfolios and Innovation Performance Connecting Structural and Managerial Perspectives. Group & Organization Management, 37(2), 241-268. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112441246
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109-122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083026
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (Seventh ed.): Pearson Prentice Hall. He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs.exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), 481-494. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
Heide, J. B. (1994). Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. The Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 71-85. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1252252
Hernández-Espallardo, M., Sánchez-Pérez, M., & Segovia-López, C. (2011). Exploitation-and exploration-based innovations: The role of knowledge in inter-firm relationships with distributors. Technovation, 31(5), 203-215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.01.007
Im, G., & Rai, A. (2008). Knowledge Sharing Ambidexterity in Long-Term Interorganizational Relationships. Management Science, 54(7), 1281-1296. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0902
Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., van den Bosch, F.A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms.Organization Science, 20(4), 797-811. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0415
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. The Academy of Management Perspectives. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0015
Kauppila, O.-P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic organization, 8(4), 283-312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127010387409
Kauppila, O.-P. (2015). Alliance Management Capability and Firm Performance: Using Resource-based Theory to Look Inside the Process Black Box. Long Range Planning, 48(3), 151-167. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.006
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization science, 3(3), 383-397. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization science, 7(5), 502-518. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.5.502
Kristal, M. M., Huang, X., & Roth, A. V. (2010). The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain strategy on combinative competitive capabilities and business performance. 28(5), 415-429. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.12.002
Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Achrol, R. S. (1992). Assessing Reseller Performance From the Perspective of the Supplier. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(2), 238-253. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3172573
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19416521003691287
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95-112. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712
López Zapata, E., García Muiña, F. E., & García Moreno, S. M. (2012). De la organización que aprende a la organización ambidiestra: evolución teórica del aprendizaje organizativo. Cuadernos de Administración, 25(45), 11-37.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Mishra, A. A., & Shah, R. (2009). In union lies strength: Collaborative competence in new product development and its performance effects.Journal of Operations Management, 27(4), 324-338. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.10.001
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. doi:1https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
OCDE, E. (2005). Manual de Oslo: Guía para la recogida e interpretación de datos sobre innovación. Recuperado de http://www.conacyt.gob.sv/Indicadores% 20Sector% 20Academcio/Manual_de_Oslo% 2005. pdf% 5D. doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264013124-fr
Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2014). Organizational Ambidexterity Through the Lens of Paradox Theory: Building a Novel Research Agenda. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314553101
Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a Path Through the Forest: A Meta-Review of Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108-1136. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407507
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 30-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1252085
Rossignoli, C., & Ricciardi, F. (2015). Inter-Organizational Relationships: Towards a Dynamic Model for Understanding Business Network Performance: Springer International Publishing. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11221-3
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International journal of research in marketing, 19(4), 305-335. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00097-6
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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x
Solís-Molina, M., Hernandez-Espallardo, M., & Rodríguez-Orejuela, A. (2015). Ambidestreza organizacional y desempeño: el papel de las relaciones inter-organizacionales. Revista Informador Técnico, 79(1), 74-92. doi: https://doi.org/10.23850/22565035.138
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AIDSMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
Williamson, O. E., & Ouchi, W. G. (1980). The markets and hierarchies program of research: Origins, implications, prospects: University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Organizational Innovation.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995
Zeng, S. X., Xie, X., & Tam, C. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181-194. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.003
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Derechos de autor 2019 Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje (SENA)
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
