Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Bongani Ngwenya
This paper extends <strong>the</strong> interplay between economic benefits <strong>of</strong> strategic innovation and knowledge
management, and social considerations in adoption <strong>of</strong> this framework or model decision. Why would
later adopters be any less interested in <strong>the</strong>se technical gains? In addition, early adoption frequently
leads to greater prestige and more positive customer attitudes (Kamins & Alpert, 2004; Rogers,
1983), which begs a fur<strong>the</strong>r question: Are early adopters really disinterested in <strong>the</strong> social gains that
come with being perceived as market leaders? Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, several researches have pointed out that
empirical tests <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model have largely relied on inference about motivations ra<strong>the</strong>r than more direct
assessments (Donaldson,1995; Scott,1995; Tolbert and Zucker,1983) or from later implementation
patterns <strong>of</strong> innovations (Westphal et al., 1997). However drawing on organizational decision-making
research and o<strong>the</strong>r prior researches, this paper argues that, both early and late adopters respond to
framing and interpreting adoption decisions situations as opportunities and threats (Dutton & Jackson,
1987; George, Chattopadhyay, Sitkin, & Barden, 2006; Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton,
1981).Specifically, <strong>the</strong> author argues that early adoption is associated with opportunity framing and
motivations to achieve gains, both economic and social, while later adoption is associated with threat
framing and motivations to avoid losses, again in both economic and social terms.
3. Research methodology
Following interpretivist research conventions, <strong>the</strong> sampling plan was purposeful (Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Spiggle,1994). Zimbabwe`s mainly manufacturing and industrial technology companies
operating in Bulawayo with patent data, registered trademarks and copyrights data were selected for
<strong>the</strong> purposes <strong>of</strong> this paper. The research sampling selection began with <strong>the</strong> group <strong>of</strong> firms in
manufacturing industry, which had evidence <strong>of</strong> patent data granted by government authority
responsible. These also had <strong>the</strong>ir trademarks and copyrights registered. Of <strong>the</strong> 37 manufacturing
firms that met <strong>the</strong> purposeful criterion, 27 were selected for <strong>the</strong> purposes <strong>of</strong> this paper. All <strong>the</strong> 9
technology based operating firms were selected and <strong>the</strong> 3 cellular network companies. The
researcher included a total <strong>of</strong> 39 Chief Executive Officers or Managing Directors selected purposefully
by virtue <strong>of</strong> being <strong>the</strong> highest level managers in <strong>the</strong>se 39 companies. The research method chosen
for this aim is that <strong>of</strong> conceptual/philosophical research. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se respondents had never met <strong>the</strong>
interviewer before. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> researcher conducted 39 individual in depth interviews.
Data collection followed <strong>the</strong> conventions <strong>of</strong> phenomenological interviewing (Thompson et al., 1989).
There is very strong rationale and justification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> methods used for data collection and
analysis in this study. By analyzing <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> interpretive research and discussing <strong>the</strong>
components and methods typically linked with it, <strong>the</strong> paper develops <strong>the</strong> argument that it is part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
very definition and thus <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> social construction <strong>of</strong> interpretive research. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interviews were
recorded. The interviews began with <strong>the</strong> “grand tour” questions: “ Can you tell me about innovation
and knowledge management?”, “What is your opinion on strategic innovation and knowledge
management, and how far innovative is your firm?, What challenges is Zimbabwe as an emerging
technology and economy facing with regard to adopting and implementing strategic innovation and
knowledge management practices?’’ As <strong>the</strong> interviews progressed <strong>the</strong> interviewer probed and
questioned <strong>the</strong> participants (Thompson et al., 1989). All <strong>the</strong> respondents enjoyed talking freely about
<strong>the</strong>ir opinion on strategic innovation and knowledge management. Interviews lasted from 1 hour to
two and a half hours. The researcher was able to help create an environment in which interruptions
and distractions were reduced (e.g., turning <strong>of</strong>f <strong>the</strong> cell phones). After <strong>the</strong> interviewer and respondent
parted company, <strong>the</strong> interviewer wrote field notes. Next, <strong>the</strong> interviews were transcribed.
Respondents were encouraged to comment on <strong>the</strong>ir transcripts ei<strong>the</strong>r by mail or telephone. The
written transcripts, field notes, and comments yielded 345 single spaced pages.
4. Analysis <strong>of</strong> data
To capture a firm’s level <strong>of</strong> innovative knowledge assets a simple patent count, based on patents
granted that is, patent history <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm, was used. Although previous studies have shown that patent
citations are a better measure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> a firm’s innovative knowledge assets than a simple
patent count (Hall, 2000). However, <strong>the</strong> social and economic context <strong>of</strong> developing countries,
Zimbabwe included, is not developed yet, to accommodate models <strong>of</strong> patent citations that are
prevalent in developed countries like America and o<strong>the</strong>rs. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, patented knowledge
may represent only a subset <strong>of</strong> a firm’s innovative knowledge assets (Tabak and Barr, 1998). To
mitigate this limitation, research and development (R&D) intensity was employed as an alternative
proxy for innovative knowledge assets. Previous studies (Griliches, 1990; Jaffe et al., 1993) have
treated investment in R&D as an important determinant <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> intangible component <strong>of</strong> market value
(DeCarolis and Deeds, 1999). To capture a firm’s level <strong>of</strong> knowledge management measure, each
316