Abstract
While there has been considerable research into the internationalisation of high-technology firms, it mostly assumes that these firms are pursuing global opportunities for technologies which are ready to be sold. This assumption does not hold for firms with ‘new-to-the-world’ technologies still under development. We investigate the internationalisation patterns of such firms by means of a qualitative case study. Our findings show the internationalisation patterns of the case firms to be uneven and discontinuous in nature. We attribute these patterns to the dialectical tensions which decision-makers confront between expanding internationally and developing their technologies. The nature and duration of the uncertainty inherent to bringing new-to-the-world technologies to global markets explains why tensions between innovation and internationalisation dominated, rather than synergies. In these conditions of fundamental uncertainty, the case firms were unable to benefit from the positive, self-reinforcing learning mechanism that underlies both the Uppsala internationalisation process model and the accelerated (early and rapid) internationalisation postulate. Instead, the dialectical process model which we develop recognises the socio-technical nature of technology, the impact of fundamental uncertainty, and the need to account for nonlinearity and interdependencies in the internationalisation process.
Résumé
Alors que la recherche sur l’internationalisation des firmes de haute technologie est importante, elle suppose souvent que ces firmes poursuivent des opportunités globales pour les technologies qui sont déjà vendues. Cette hypothèse ne vaut pas pour les firmes avec des technologies « nouvelles pour le monde » encore en développement. Nous étudions les modèles d’internationalisation de ces firmes par le biais d’études de cas qualitatives. Nos résultats montrent que les modèles d’internationalisation des entreprises étudiées sont par nature inégaux et discontinus. Nous imputons ces modèles aux tensions dialectiques, entre l’expansion internationale et le développement des technologies, auxquelles les décideurs sont confrontés. La nature et la durée de l’incertitude inhérente à l’introduction de technologies « nouvelles pour le monde » sur les marchés globaux expliquent pourquoi les tensions, plutôt que les synergies, entre innovation et internationalisation sont dominantes. Dans ces conditions d’incertitude fondamentale, les entreprises étudiées ont été incapables de bénéficier du mécanisme positif, auto-renforçant, d’apprentissage qui est sous-jacent à la fois au modèle du processus d’internationalisation d’Uppsala et au postulat d’internationalisation accélérée (précoce et rapide). Au contraire, le modèle du processus dialectique que nous développons reconnaît la nature sociotechnique de la technologie, l’impact de l’incertitude fondamentale et le besoin de prendre en compte la non-linéarité et les interdépendances dans le processus d’internationalisation.
Resumen
Aunque ha habido una considerable investigación sobre la internacionalización de las empresas de alta tecnología, esta principalmente asume que estas empresas están buscando oportunidades globales de tecnología que están lista para ser vendidas. Esta suposición no es válida para las empresas con tecnologías “nuevas en el mundo” aún en desarrollo. Investigamos los patrones de internacionalización de estas empresas mediante un estudio de caso cualitativo. Nuestros hallazgos muestran que los patrones de internacionalización en empresas de casos son desiguales y discontinuos por naturaleza. Atribuimos estos patrones a las tensiones dialécticas a las cuales los tomadores de decisión se enfrentan entre expandirse internacionalmente o desarrollar sus tecnologías. La naturaleza y la duración de la incertidumbre inherente a introducir tecnologías nuevas en el mundo a los mercados globales explica el por qué dominaron las tensiones entre la innovación y la internacionalización, en lugar de sinergias. En estas condiciones de incertidumbre fundamental, las empresas del estudio son incapaces de beneficiarse del mecanismo del aprendizaje positivo y auto-reforzado que subyace en el modelo de proceso de internacionalización de Uppsala y el postulado de internacionalización acelerada (temprana y rápida). En su lugar, el modelo del proceso dialéctico que desarrollamos reconoce la naturaleza sociotécnica de la tecnología, el impacto de la incertidumbre fundamental, y la necesidad de tener en cuenta lo no lineal y las interdependencias en el proceso de internacionalización.
Resumo
Embora tenham sido realizadas consideráveis pesquisas sobre a internacionalização de empresas de alta tecnologia, elas em sua maioria supõem que essas empresas estão buscando oportunidades globais para tecnologias que estão prontas para serem comercializadas. Essa suposição não é válida para empresas com tecnologias “novas para o mundo” ainda em desenvolvimento. Nós investigamos os padrões de internacionalização dessas empresas por meio de um estudo de caso qualitativo. Nossas descobertas mostram que os padrões de internacionalização das empresas dos casos são de natureza desigual e descontínua. Atribuímos esses padrões às tensões dialéticas que os decisores enfrentam entre a expansão internacional e o desenvolvimento de suas tecnologias. A natureza e a duração da incerteza inerente a trazer tecnologias novas para o mundo para os mercados globais explicam por que as tensões entre inovação e internacionalização dominaram, e não as sinergias. Nessas condições de incerteza fundamental, as firmas dos casos não conseguiram se beneficiar do mecanismo de aprendizagem positivo e auto-reforçado que está subjacente ao modelo de processo de internacionalização de Uppsala e ao acelerado (inicial e rápido) postulado de internacionalização. Em vez disso, o modelo de processo dialético que desenvolvemos reconhece a natureza sócio-técnica da tecnologia, o impacto da incerteza fundamental e a necessidade de considerar a não-linearidade e as interdependências no processo de internacionalização.
概要
对高科技公司的国际化虽然有大量的研究,但大多数都假设这些公司正在为准备出售的技术寻找全球的机会。这一假设并不适用于仍在开发“对世界全新的”技术公司。我们通过定性案例研究来调查这些公司的国际化模式。我们的研究结果显示,案例公司国际化模式本质上是不均衡的和不连续的。我们将这些模式归因于决策者在国际拓展和技术开发之间所面临的辩证关系。将对世界全新的技术引入全球市场所固有的不确定性的性质和持续时间解释了为什么创新和国际化之间的紧张关系,而不是协同效应,占主导地位。在这些极端不确定性的情况下,案例公司无法从乌普萨拉国际化过程模型和加速(早期和快速)国际化假设背后的积极而自我强化的学习机制中受益。相反,我们开发的辩证过程模型认识到技术的社会技术本质,极端不确定性的影响,以及解释国际化过程中非线性和相互依赖性的必要性。
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2007. Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1265–1281.
Andrews, W., & Koehler-Kruener, H. 2015. Magic quadrant for enterprise search. Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/doc/3115018/magic-quadrant-enterprise-search. Accessed 3 January 2018.
Autio, E., George, G., & Alexy, O. 2011. International entrepreneurship and capability development – Qualitative evidence and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1): 11–37.
Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. 2000. Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 909–924.
Autio, E., Yli Renko, H., & Salonen, A. 1997. International growth of young technology-based firms: A resource-based network model. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 5(1): 57–73.
Benson, J. K. 1977. Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1): 1–21.
Berkhout, A. J., Hartmann, D., van der Duin, P., & Ortt, R. 2006. Innovating the innovation process. International Journal of Technology Management, 34(3/4): 390–404.
Bijker, W. E. 2006. Why and how technology matters. In R. E. Goodin & C. Tilly (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis (pp. 681–706). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bijker, W. E. 2010. How is technology made? That is the question! Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1): 63–76.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. 2012. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2nd edn.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. 2009. A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3): 305–337.
Cheng, Y. T., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1996. Learning the innovation journey: Order out of chaos? Organization Science, 7(6): 593–614.
Coviello, N. E. 2006. The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 713–731.
Coviello, N., & Munro, H. 1997. Network relationships and the internationalisation process of small software firms. International Business Review, 6(4): 361–386.
Crick, D., & Jones, M. V. 2000. Small high-technology firms and international high-technology markets. Journal of International Marketing, 8(2): 63–85.
de Clercq, D., Sapienza, H. J., Yavuz, R. I., & Zhou, L. 2012. Learning and knowledge in early internationalization research: Past accomplishments and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1): 143–165.
de Rond, M., & Bouchiki, H. 2004. On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 15(1): 56–69.
Dequech, D. 2011. Uncertainty: A typology and refinements of existing concepts. Journal of Economic Issues, 45(3): 621–640.
Doctor, R. N., Newton, D. P., & Pearson, A. 2001. Managing uncertainty in research and development. Technovation, 21(2): 79–90.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.
Fagerberg, J. 2005. Innovation: A guide to the literature. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farjoun, M. 2017. Contradictions, dialectics and paradoxes. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp. 87–109). London: Sage.
Fernhaber, S. A., Gilbert, B. A., & McDougall, P. P. 2008. International entrepreneurship and geographic location: An empirical examination of new venture internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2): 267–290.
Fernhaber, S. A., & McDougall, P. P. 2005. New venture growth in international markets: The role of strategic adaptation and networking capabilities. In D. A. Shepherd & J. A. Katz (Eds.), International entrepreneurship (Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, volume 8): 111–136. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Fernhaber, S. A., McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. 2007. Exploring the role of industry structure in new venture internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31(4): 517–542.
Filatotchev, I., & Piesse, J. 2009. R&D, internationalization and growth of newly listed firms: European evidence. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8): 1260–1276.
Forsgren, M. 2016. A note on the revisited Uppsala internationalization process model – the implications of business networks and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(9): 1135–1144.
Francis, J., & Collins-Dodd, C. 2000. The impact of firms’ export orientation on the export performance of high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of International Marketing, 8(3): 84–103.
Freeman, C., & Soete, L. 1997. The economics of industrial innovation. London: Pinter, 3rd edn.
Garnsey, E., Galloway, S., & Mathisen, S. 1994. Flexibility and specialization in question; birth, growth and death rates of Cambridge new technology-based firms 1988–92. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 6(1): 81–107.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. 2001. Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. In R. Garud & P. Karnøe (Eds.), Path dependence and creation (pp. 1–38). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Garvey, D., & Brennan, L. 2006. The internationalisation of indigenous Irish software technology companies: An exploratory study. Irish Journal of Management, 26(2): 81–108.
Godin, B. 2017. Models of innovation: The history of an idea. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Golovko, E., & Valentini, G. 2011. Exploring the complementarity between innovation and export for SMEs’ growth. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(3): 362–380.
Green, K. 1991. Shaping technologies and shaping markets: Creating demand for biotechnology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 3(1): 57–76.
Hadjikhani, A., Ghauri, P., & Johanson, J. 2005. Introduction: Opportunity development in business networks. In P. Ghauri, A. Hadjikhani, & J. Johanson (Eds.), Managing opportunity development in business networks (pp. 1–24). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. 2016. Organizing risk: Discourse, power, and ‘riskification’. Academy of Management Review, 41(1): 80–108.
Jasanoff, S. 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. 2006. Technology as a site and object of politics. In R. E. Goodin & C. Tilly (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis (pp. 745–763). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitment. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23–32.
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1411–1431.
Jones, M. V., & Coviello, N. E. 2005. Internationalisation: Conceptualising an entrepreneurial process of behaviour in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3): 284–303.
Keizer, J. A., Vos, J.-P., & Halman, J. I. M. 2005. Risks in new product development: Devising a reference tool. R&D Management, 35(3): 297–309.
Kipping, M., Wadhwani, R. D., & Bucheli, M. 2014. Analyzing and interpreting historical sources: A basic methodology. In M. Bucheli & R. D. Wadhwani (Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods (pp. 305–329). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kline, R., & Pinch, T. 1999. The social construction of technology. In D. Mackenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds) The social shaping of technology: 113–115. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2nd edn.
Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2004. Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2): 124–141.
Kyläheiko, K., Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S., & Tuppura, A. 2011. Innovation and internationalization as growth strategies: The role of technological capabilities and appropriability. International Business Review., 20(5): 508–520.
Langley, A. 2009. Studying processes in and around organizations. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 409–429). London: Sage.
Langley, A., & Sloan, P. 2012. Organizational change and dialectic processes. In D. M. Boje, B. Burnes, & J. Hassard (Eds.), The Routledge companion to organizational change (pp. 261–275). Oxon: Routledge.
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. 2013. Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 1–13.
Lee, H., Kelley, D., Lee, J., & Lee, S. 2012. SME survival: The impact of internationalization, technology resources, and alliances. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(1): 1–19.
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. 2010. What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1): 1–41.
Liesch, P. W., Welch, L. S., & Buckley, P. J. 2011. Risk and uncertainty in internationalization and international entrepreneurship studies: Review and conceptual development. Management International Review, 51(6): 851–873.
Lin, W. T., Cheng, K. Y., & Liu, Y. 2009. Organizational slack and firm’s internationalization: A longitudinal study of high-technology firms. Journal of World Business, 44(4): 397–406.
Lindqvist, M. 1997. Infant multinationals: Internationalisation of small technology-based firms. In D. Jones-Evans & M. Klofsten (Eds.), Technology, innovation and enterprise: The European experience (pp. 303–324). Basingstoke, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Lopez, L. E., Kundu, S. K., & Ciravegna, L. 2009. Born global or born regional? Evidence from an exploratory study in the Costa Rican software industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7): 1228–1238.
March, J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.
Mudambi, R., & Zahra, S. A. 2007. The survival of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2): 333–352.
Nielsen, R. P. 1996. Varieties of dialectical change processes. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(3): 276–292.
OECD/Eurostat. 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD Publications, 3rd edn.
Orlikowski, W. J. 2010. The sociomateriality of organisational life: Considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1): 125–141.
Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 2005. Defining international entrepreneurship and modelling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5): 537–554.
Packard, M. D., Clark, B. B., & Klein, P. G. 2017. Uncertainty types and transitions in the entrepreneurial process. Organization Science, 28(5): 840–856.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3): 267–292.
Porac, J. F., Rosa, J. A., Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. 2001. America’s family vehicle: Path creation in the US minivan market. In R. Garud & P. Karnøe (Eds.), Path dependence and creation (pp. 213–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Power, M. 2007. Organized uncertainty: Designing a world of risk management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 65–171.
Ragin, C. C. 1999. The distinctiveness of case-oriented research. Health Services Research, 34(5): 1137–1151.
Reuber, A. R., Dimitratos, P., & Kuivalainen, O. 2017. Beyond categorization: New directions for theory development about entrepreneurial internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(4): 411–422.
Rosen, P. 1993. The social construction of mountain bikes: Technology and postmodernity in the cycle industry. Social Studies of Science, 23(3): 479–513.
Santangelo, G., & Meyer, K. E. 2017. Internationalization as an evolutionary process. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1114–1130.
Shrader, R. C., Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. 2000. How new ventures exploit trade-offs among international risk factors: Lessons for the accelerated internationalization of the 21st century. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1227–1247.
Un, C. A. 2016. The liability of localness in innovation. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(1): 44–67.
Vahlne, J., & Johanson, J. 2017. From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1087–1102.
Van de Ven, A. H. 2017. The innovation journey: You can’t control it, but you can learn to manoeuvre it. Innovation, 19(1): 39–42.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management and Review, 20(3): 510–540.
Vissak, T., & Francioni, B. 2013. Serial non-linear internationalisation in practice: A case study. International Business Review, 22(6): 951–962.
Weerawardena, J., Mort, G. S., Liesch, P. W., & Knight, G. 2007. Conceptualizing accelerated internationalization in the born global firm: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of World Business, 42(3): 294–306.
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2011. Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 740–762.
White, M. S. 2016. Enterprise search: Enhancing performance (p. 58). Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, 2nd edn.
Williams, R., & Edge, D. 1996. The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25(6): 865–899.
Young, S.L., Welter, C., & Conger, M. 2017. Stability vs. flexibility: The effect of regulatory institutions on opportunity type. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0095-7
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Niina Nummela and her international business group at the Turku School of Economics for welcoming us for a visit in 2015, and where we were able to complete much of the data analysis. We are also grateful for suggestions and feedback from our colleagues at the University of Sydney, particularly Bo Nielsen and Ian Wilkinson. Maria Rumyantseva’s skills and time were invaluable in helping us improve our visuals. The guidance and wisdom of the special issue editors have contributed significantly to improving our ideas. A special thank you is due to David Anstice, whose passion for understanding the intersection of internationalisation and innovation set us on this path of inquiry. Above all, we warmly thank CSIRO’s commercialisation team and all the participants in our study, without whose generosity in sharing their experiences and reflections this study would not have been possible.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Supplementary information accompanies this article on the Journal of International Business Studies website (www.palgrave.com/journals).
Accepted by Becky Reuber, Area Editor, 21 January 2018. This article has been with the authors for five revisions.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kriz, A., Welch, C. Innovation and internationalisation processes of firms with new-to-the-world technologies. J Int Bus Stud 49, 496–522 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0147-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0147-7