×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
Instructions for papers
For Authors Aim & Scope Contact
Original scientific article

MARKETING AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-BASED ENTERPRISES

By
Najmitdinov Akhadkhon Khamitdkhanovich Orcid logo ,
Najmitdinov Akhadkhon Khamitdkhanovich

Rector, Faculty of Business Administration, Business Administration, Finance, Management, Economics, Turan International University , Namangan , Uzbekistan

Sardorbek Isroilov Orcid logo ,
Sardorbek Isroilov

Vice-rector for Strategic Development and International Cooperation, Faculty of Business Administration, Business Administration, IT, Math, Turan International University , Namangan , Uzbekistan

Ibragimov Ulmas Rakhmanovich Orcid logo ,
Ibragimov Ulmas Rakhmanovich

Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs, Faculty of Business Administration, Business Administration, Economics, Management, Turan International University , Namangan , India

Gofurjanov Ibrokhimjon Ilkhomjon Ugli Orcid logo ,
Gofurjanov Ibrokhimjon Ilkhomjon Ugli

Associate Lecturer of Information Technology, Faculty of Business Administration, Business Administration, IT, Pedagogy, Turan International University , Namangan , Uzbekistan

Tokhir Khorilov Gaybiddinovich Orcid logo
Tokhir Khorilov Gaybiddinovich

Associate Lecturer of Business Administration, Faculty of Business Administration, Business Administration, Finance, Management, Economics, Turan International University , Namangan , Uzbekistan

Abstract

The enterprises, which are science and technology-based (STBEs), work in a highly dynamic and knowledge-intensive environment where long-lasting competitiveness is determined by the success in matching innovation and marketing potential. Although these capabilities have been studied separately in previous research, a noticeable lack of empirical research has incorporated these two capabilities into a single framework that explains their combined effect on innovation performance. The paper is a comparative study that empirically explores the boundary of innovation management capabilities and marketing capabilities on innovation performance in STBEs, with absorptive capacity discussed as a mediating effect. The survey design that was used was quantitative, cross-sectional, and data were gathered among managers of science and technology-based enterprises. The relationships proposed were tested with the help of structural equation modeling. These findings suggest that there is a strong positive impact of the innovation management capabilities on innovation performance (0.32, p < 0.001) and the marketing capabilities have a strong positive impact on innovation performance (0.29, p < 0.001). It was established that innovation management capabilities (β = 0.14, p < 0.001) and marketing capabilities (= 0.13) have significant indirect effects, mediated by absorptive capacity (0.001). Besides, the innovation performance has a critical positive impact on the firm performance (= 0.47, p < 0.001). The model describes 58 % of the innovation performance and 44 % of the firm performance variance. The results are a reflection of the significance of combining innovation management, marketing, and knowledge-based capabilities to improve the effects of innovation within science and technology-based businesses.

References

1.
Bil E. The effect of technological innovation capabilities on companies’ innovation and marketing performance: A field study on Technopark companies in Turkey. Journal of Life Economics. 2021;(3):361–78.
2.
Liao S, Fu L, Liu Z. Investigating open innovation strategies and firm performance: the moderating role of technological capability and market information management capability. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 2020;(1):23–39.
3.
Ebrahiminejad M, Soltani D, M. The role of technological innovation capabilities on innovative performance promotion in knowledge-based firms (Studying firms in Science and Technology Park of Tehran University). 2018;(41):83–109.
4.
Medase K, Barasa L. Absorptive capacity, marketing capabilities, and innovation commercialisation in Nigeria. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2019;(5):790–820.
5.
Mir M, Casadesús M, Petnji L. The impact of standardized innovation management systems on innovation capability and business performance: An empirical study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 2016;26–44.
6.
He P, Pei Y, Lin C, Ye D. Ambidextrous Marketing Capabilities, Exploratory and Exploitative Market-Based Innovation, and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study on China’s Manufacturing Sector. Sustainability. 2021;13(3):1146.
7.
Niazi A. The role of entrepreneurship, innovation and marketing capability in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Journal of Economic & Management Perspectives. 2017;(3):1748–59.
8.
Potjanajaruwit P. Innovation and marketing capabilities of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Thailand. International Journal of Membrane Science and Technology. 2023;(4):1721–31.
9.
Izadi Z, Ziyadin S, Palazzo M, Sidhu M. The evaluation of the impact of innovation management capability to organisational performance. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 2020;(4):697–723.
10.
Baniasadi N, Samari D, Hosseini SJF, Najafabadi MO. Strategic study of total innovation management and its relationship with marketing capabilities in palm conversion and complementary industries. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2021;10(1).
11.
He P, Pei Y, Lin C, Ye D. Ambidextrous Marketing Capabilities, Exploratory and Exploitative Market-Based Innovation, and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study on China’s Manufacturing Sector. Sustainability. 2021;13(3):1146.
12.
Potjanajaruwit P. Innovation and marketing capabilities of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Thailand. International Journal of Membrane Science and Technology. 2023;(4):1721–31.
13.
Migdadi M. Knowledge management, customer relationship management and innovation capabilities. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 2021;(1):111–24.
14.
Dethine B, Enjolras M, Monticolo D. Digitalization and SMEs’ Export Management: Impacts on Resources and Capabilities. Technology Innovation Management Review. 2020;10(4):18–34.
15.
Leonidou E, Christofi M, Vrontis D, Thrassou A. An integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development. Journal of Business Research. 2020;245–58.
16.
Sjödin D, Parida V, Jovanovic M, Visnjic I. Value creation and value capture alignment in business model innovation: A process view on outcome-based business models. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2020;(2):158–83.
17.
Haefner N, Wincent J, Parida V, Gassmann O. Artificial intelligence and innovation management: A review, framework, and research agenda✰. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021;162:120392.
18.
Del Giudice M, Scuotto V, Papa A, Tarba S, Bresciani S, Warkentin M. A self-tuning model for smart manufacturing SMEs: Effects on digital innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2021;(1):68–89.
19.
Mendoza-Silva A. Innovation capability: a systematic literature review. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2021;(3):707–34.
20.
Sun Y, Liu J, Ding Y. Analysis of the relationship between open innovation, knowledge management capability and dual innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2020;(1):15–28.
21.
Nhlapo S, Bhagwandeen R, Lekhu M. An investigation of the relationship between laboratory use skills of Grade 10 physical sciences learners and their academic performance. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching. 2025;(4):71–85.

Citation

This is an open access article distributed under the  Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC) License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.