The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Antecedents and performance impacts of product versus process innovation: Empirical evidence from SMEs located in Turkish science and technology parks
Abstract
Purpose: The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships between seven antecedent factors (R&D strategy, top management support (TMS), customer focus (CF), organizational learning capability (OLC), creative capability (CC), organizational collaboration (OC), and supplier relationship (SR)), two innovation types (product and process), and firm performance (FP). Design/methodology/approach: The paper formulates 16 hypotheses from the literature review. These hypotheses are tested using structural equation modeling with data collected from 270 managers of small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) located in Turkish science and technology parks (STPs). Findings: The findings indicate that both of product and process innovation have a strong and positive association with FP. While antecedents such as R&D strategy, TMS, CF, CC, and SR have significant impact on product innovation, other antecedents such as OLC and OC have a significant and positive impact on process innovation. Practical implications: The results of this study could be used by any managers of SMEs located in STPs to improve successful innovation projects. The results also provide companies operating in Turkish STPs with useful information on how their policies and actions might affect firm innovation. Originality/value: The paper provides a clarification of the reasons that may be behind a positive, a negative, or a non‐significant effect of the many antecedents on the product and process in SMEs located in Turkish STPs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R & D
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2233763 · Cited by 7,530
Practical issues in structural modeling
BENTLER, P. M., & CHOU, C.-P. (1987) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124187016001004 · Cited by 5,804
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x · Cited by 3,410 · cited 1×
“Depending on this choice, researchers should use whether multi-item measures generated by scale development (reflective) and index construction (formative) approaches ( Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006”
Background
Cited by
Zhang, F., & Zhu, L. (2019) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2298 · Cited by 485
Prajogo, D. I. (2016) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.07.037 · Cited by 470
Rosli, M. M., & Sidek, S. (2013) · Journal of Innovation Management in Small & Medium Enterprise · doi:10.5171/2013.885666 · Cited by 265
Metadata
- Authors
- Murat Ar, I., & Baki, B.
- Venue
- European Journal of Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2011-04-26
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 172-206
- ISSN
- 1460-1060 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1533909879
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 32.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Antecedents and performance impacts of product versus process innovation: Empirical evidence from SMEs located in Turkish science and technology parks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/14601061111124885
- The paper
- Murat Ar, I., & Baki, B. (2011). Antecedents and performance impacts of product versus process innovation: Empirical evidence from SMEs located in Turkish science and technology parks. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061111124885
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.