The use of Technology to improve Organizational Performance through Corporate Entrepreneurship

Abstract

Nowadays, corporate entrepreneurship is becoming the key source to develop firms in order to improve their results. In this way, technology plays a similar key role so as to obtain higher organizational performance through more efficiently corporate entrepreneurship in the firm. In this regard, the aim of this paper is to introduce how organizational performance on the organization is enhanced by corporate entrepreneurship; which is influenced by technology, through different assets, such as top management support to technology, technological skills, technology acquisition, technological integration and a technological infrastructure.

Full text

Technology Information and Science Management of Journal International The
(IJMSIT)
Publishers NAISIT
Chief in Editor
jjmf@ubi.pt Email: Portugal, Interior, Beira of University Ferreira, J. J.
Editors Associate
Portugal interior, Beira of University Ferreira, M. J. João Editor-in-Chief:
Editors: Main
USA Memphis, of University and Portugal Lisbon, of Institute University Ferreira, F. A. Fernando
Spain Barcelona, of University Lindahl, Merigó M. José
Editors: Assistant
University, Portucalense and (UBI) Sciences Business in Unit -Research NECE at Reseacher Fernandes, Cristina
Portugal
Australia Queensland, Southern of University Co, Jess
Portugal Lisbon, of Institute University Jalali, S. Marjan
Board: Advisory Editorial
UK Management, of School Cardiff Lincoln, Adebimpe
Israel College, Academic Netanya Tziner, Aharon
USA Pennsylvania, University, Morris Robert Smith, D. Alan
Spain Barcelona, of University Lafuente, G. Maria Ana
Norway Management, of School Oslo Mariussen, Anastasia
Spain Barcelona, de Autònoma Universitat Tarrés, i Serarols Christian
UK university, City -Birmingham School Business Millman, Cindy
Romania Bucharest, of University Gh, Popescu R. Cristina
UK School, Business University Newcastle Irawati, Dessy
Spain Valencia, of University Ribeiro, Domingo
USA Business, of Schools Carayannis, G. Elias
USA University, Technological Michigan Oliveira, Emanuel
Spain Seville, of University Liñán, Francisco
UK University, City Birmingham Matlay, Harry
UK London, of University Birkbeck, Smith, Lawton Helen
France Business, of School Rennes ESC Faculty, Adjunct Purcarea, Irina
HK University, Polytechnic Kong Hong The Choi, Jason
USA Paso, El at Texas of University Faria, Ricardo João
Spain Valencia, of University Vila, Jose
Bulgaria Economy, World and National of University Todorov, Kiril
Canada Montréal, HEC Filion, Jacques Louis
Italy II, Federico Naples of University Landoli, Luca
Brazil Paulo, Säo de Universidade at Researcher Sakuda, Ojima Luiz
Portugal Interior, Beira of University Raposo, L. Mário
Spain València, de Politècnica Universitat Peris-Ortiz, Marta
Zealand New Waikato, of University The Akoorie, Michele
Canada Trois-Rivières, à Québec du Université Julien, Pierre-André
Jordan University, Hashemite The Karabsheh, Radwan
Zimbabwe Technology, and Science of University National Mhlanga, Richard
Brazil – Vargas Getulio Fundação Bandeira-de-Mello, Rodrigo

Netherlands The - University Tilberg Rutten, Roel
Verde Cabo Empresariais, e Económicas Ciências de Superior Instituto Cruz, Rosa
Netherlands The Rotterdam, University Erasmus Thurik, Roy
India Delhi, Technology of Institute Indian Jain, K. Sudhir
Portugal Interior, Beira of University Azevedo, G. Susana
Denmark University, Business Copenhagen Hollensen, Svend
Austria Vienna, of University Frisch, Walter
USA University, State Colorado Byrne, S. Zinta
Board Review Editorial
Turkey Turkey, University Selçuk Ögüt, Adem
Greece Athens, of University Agricultural Sideridis, B. Alexander
Netherlands The Amsterdam, University VU Sharpanskykh, Alexei
USA York, -York, University State Pennsylvania Kara, Ali
Brazil Rio, Grande Universidade Freitas, Angilberto
Portugal Interior, Beira of University Paço, do Arminda
Finland Jyväskylä, of University Ojala, Arto
Portugal Douro, Alto e Tras-os-Montes of University Marques, Carla
Turkey University, Çukurova Tanova, Cem
Brazil Catarina, Santa de Federal Universidade Tolfo, Cristiano
Portugal Branco, Castelo of Institute Polytechnic Estevão, S. Cristina
Croatia Split, of University Miocevic, Dario
Zealand New School, Business Auckland of University The Askarany, Davood
USA Washington, of University Revere, Debra
USA Ohio, Cincinnati, of University Gormley, Kolesar Denise
Kong Hong Technology, and Science of University Kong Hong Chiu, K.W. Dickson
Spain Navarra, of University Melé, Domènec
Brazil School, Business FUCAPE Mainardes, Emerson
USA University, Arizona Northern Otenyo, E. Eric
USA University, Illinois Southern Watson, W. George
Brazil Maria, Santa de Federal Universidade Moura, de Luiz Gilnei
China University, Psychology,Zhejiang of Department Zhong, An Jian
Portugal Lisbon, University, Catholic Portuguese Sciences, Human of Faculty Pinto, Carneiro Joana
Spain Valencia, of University Alegre, Joaquín
USA Jersey, New Business, of School Anisfield Rakotobe, Thierry Joel
USA , FL Sanford, Florida, Central of University Matusitz, Jonathan
India Kharagpur, Technology of Institute Indian Srivastava, L. B. Kailash
Netherlands Twente,The of University Sanders, Karin
Germany Koblenz-Landau, of University Troitzsch, G. Klaus
China Nanjing, Technology, of University Nanjing Shi, Kuiran
Portugal ISLA, Faria, Costa da Liliana
Canada Ontario, Western of University Capretz, Fernando Luiz
USA Business, of College Godkin, Lynn
Canada Winnipeg, of University Liu, Chunhui Maggie
Belgium Liège, of University Ausloos, Marcel
USA Texas, University,Denton, Woman's Texas Benham-Hutchins, Marge

Spain Granada, of University Pérez-Aróstegui, Nieves María
Italy Udine, of University Cagnina, Rosita Maria
University,Taiwan Hwa Dong National Tabata, Mayumi
Portugal University, Lusíada and University Portucalense Pinho, Micaela
Italy Basilicata, of University Renna, Paolo
Portugal Coimbra, of University Cunha, Rupino Paulo
Germany University, Saarland Loos, Peter
Spain Vigo, de Empresas de Administración e Economia de F. García, Piñero Pilar
Romania Bucharest, Studies, Economic of University Bucharest Gheorghe, N. Popescu
Economic of University Bucharest The and Satu-Mare of Academy Commercial The Adriana, Veronica Popescu
Romania Bucharest, Studies,
India Technology, and Management of Institute Singh, Ramanjeet
Portugal of University Catholic Morais, Ricardo
Spain Rioja, of University Ortiz, Fernández Ruben
Canada Manitoba, of University Thulasiram, K. Ruppa
USA NJ, University,Montclair, State Montclair Kim, Soo
Taiwan University, Yat-Sem Sun National Chiou, Wen-Bin
USA GA, ,Augusta, College Paine Lawless, Willaim
Singapore University, Management Singapore Koh, T.H. Winston

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
NAISIT Publishers
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014)
Table of Contents
1
THE DILEMMA OF MANAGING SCARCE HEALTH CARE RESOURCES:
EVIDENCE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ECONOMIC OR ETHICAL
PRINCIPLES IN MICROALLOCATION DECISIONS
MICAELA M. PINHO, Portucalense University, Portugal
12
EXPLORING THE INLFUENCE OF EWOM IN BUYING BEHAVIOR
F. JAVIER RONDAN CATALUÑA, UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE,, Spain
JORGE ARENAS GAITÁN, UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE, Spain
PATRICIO E. RAMIREZ CORREA, UNIVERSITY CATHOLIC OF THE NORTH,
CHILE
27
A FRAMEWORK FOR DEALING WITH FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE
PROBLEMS THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA
HARRI JALONEN, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Finland
28
HOW TO MANAGE R
NURIA RODRíGUEZ-LóPEZ, University of Vigo, Spain
BEATRIZ GONZáLEZ-VáZQUEZ, University of Vigo, Spain
ELENA RIVO-LóPEZ, University of Vigo, Spain
38
THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL
PERFORMANCE THROUGH CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
RODRIGO MARTíN ROJAS , University of Leon, Spain
NURIA GONZáLEZ ÁLVAREZ , University of Leon, Spain
VíCTOR J. GARCíA MORALES , University of Granada, Spain
AURORA GARRIDO MORENO, University of Málaga, Spain

This is one paper of
The International Journal of Management Science and
Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014)

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
38
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL
PERFORMANCE THROUGH CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP.
Rodrigo Martín Rojas (rodrigo.martin.rojas@unileon.es)*.
Assistant Professor
Management and Business Economy Department
Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Leon.
Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071
Leon, Spain
Tlf. 987293497
Fax. 987291454.
*Corresponding author.
Nuria González Álvarez (nuria.gonzalez@unileon.es).
Professor
Management and Business Economy Department
Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Leon.
Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071
Leon, Spain
Tlf. 987291000 Ext. 5527
Fax. 987291454.
Víctor J. García Morales (victorj@ugr.es).
Full Professor
Business Administration Departamento
Faculty of Business and Economics.
University of Granada.
Campus de Cartuja s/n, 18071
Granada, Spain.
Tlf. 958249596
Fax. 958246222.
Aurora Garrido Moreno, (agarridom@uma.es).
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Social and Labour Studies.
University of Málaga
Campus de Teatinos (Ampliacion) s/n 29071
Málaga, Spain
Tel. 951952011.
ABSTRACT: Nowadays, corporate entrepreneurship is becoming the key source to develop firms in order to
improve their results. In this way, technology plays a similar key role so as to obtain higher organizational
performance through more efficiently corporate entrepreneurship in the firm. In this regard, the aim of this paper is
to introduce how organizational performance on the organization is enhanced by corporate entrepreneurship; which
is influenced by technology, through different assets, such as top management support to technology, technological
skills, technology acquisition, technological integration and a technological infrastructure.
Key words:Corporate Entrepreneurship, Organizational Performance, Technological Assets.

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
39
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
1 Introduction
One of the most important strategic decisions management faces in today’s globally competitive
environment surrounds the issue of technology development (Jones et al., 2001). Decisions
concerning technological variables are essentials for a firm’s overall competitive strategy and
positioning (Zahra, 1996).
Assessing the value of technology has never been easy. However, with technology, firms can
introduce some systems to reduce costs and evaluate these systems in terms of their success
(Ross et al., 1996). The value of these initiatives lies in their contribution to a firm’s
competitiveness, which is often unquantifiable and uncertain (Ross et al., 1996). Recent
developments in technology, particularly in micro-electronics and computer systems, have
heightened awareness of technological skills impact and led to a reconsideration of the links with
technological integration change, technological infrastructure development and other dimensions
of organizational life such as technological acquisition (Larsen et al., 1991; Byrd and Turner,
2001; Zahra and George, 2002). This technological framework is possible thanks to the support
from top managers to technology (TMS in advanced) (Byrd and Davidson, 2003; Stone, 2006).
In addition to this, the presence of highly technologically integrated incumbents may create
opportunities for new firms that pursue more flexible and responsive impartation strategies
(Barreyre, 1988). Entrepreneurs identify such opportunities through the discovery and creation of
knowledge, technology, and ideas which are critical raw material for innovation (Alvarez and
Barney, 2007). Successful innovation may be measured by observing growth and change in
technology; consequently relative levels of investment from managers permit technology to
facilitate, by a knowledge process, innovation inside a company (Heffner and Sharif, 2008).
Furthermore, knowledge and technologies are integrated to develop entrepreneurial
competencies.
Subsequently entrepreneurial dimension is enhanced by the integration and acquisition of the
technological knowledge into the technological infrastructure; since they all incentive systems

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
40
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
which establish a structure for science and innovation by having acquired and integrated
technology in the firm (Burger-Helmchen, 2008).
All these technological assets let develop innovation capabilities and encourage corporate
entrepreneurship what creates an environment for investments in scientific and technological
endeavors, develop innovation capabilities and ensure the sustainable growth of corporate
entrepreneurship (CE in advance) (Koh, 2006).
Finally, we will analyze CE as a means for renewing established organizations, to innovate and
increasing their ability to compete in global markets.
To develop all these constructs we structure the paper in different sections. In the theoretical
background section all the concepts and hypothesis are explained. Firstly, we develop the
influence of TMS on technological skills, technological acquisition, technological infrastructure
and technological integration. Secondly, we explain the influence of technological skills on
technological acquisition, technological infrastructure and technological integration. Thirdly, we
explain the influence of these technological variables on CE. Lastly, we fix the influence of CE
on organizational performance in technological companies. Finally, the implications, limitations
and future research are explained in the conclusion section.
2 Theoretical background and main focus
2.1 The influence of TMS on technological skills, technological acquisition, technological
infrastructure and technological integration
TMS is one of the most often-cited concepts in the technology literature (Ghosh et al., 2001). It
“reflects, in many ways, the importance that top management executives place on technology”
(Byrd and Davidson, 2003, p. 246). For Leonard-Barton and Deschamps (1988, p. 1254), TMS is
a “perceived powerful source”. Omerzel and Antoncic (2008) studied managerial support in
technology and concluded that one person is usually in charge of organizational learning,
combining both knowledge ownership and the managerial skills. For them, the main manager is
the person who provides employees with a technological ability by means of an organizational

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
41
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
learning process and consequently includes the facilitation of technology transfer throughout the
firm. Then, personal commitment from top managers is a key factor for a successful business
(Omerzel and Antoncic, 2008; Georgiadis et al., 2012).
On the other hand, Leonard-Barton (1992, p. 113) defines skills as “one of four dimensions that
distinguishes and provides the knowledge set needed to enable a core capability. This skills
dimension encompasses both firm-specific techniques and scientific understanding”. It provides
the basis for a firm’s competitive capacities and sustainable advantage in a particular business
(Teece, 1986). If we apply this understanding to technological issues, Leonard-Barton (1992)
emphasizes that technological skills constitute the entire technical system, which usually traces
its roots back to the firm’s first products. Technological skills define the roots of a firm’s
sustainable competitive advantage, since the capabilities comprise patents protected by law,
technological knowledge, and production skills that are valuable and difficult to imitate by
competitors (Lee et al., 2001).
Regarding the relationship between TMS and technological skills, Stone (2006) affirmed that
TMS is identified as an important core value that can be used to demonstrate commitment and
enhance the potential for employee participation. It is manifested in terms of consistent decisions
in support of organizational learning programmes. Managers should understand company culture
and values, and they should maintain what is good and promotes technological skill creation
through an organizational learning process. This can be achieved if the manager is willing to
observe and talk to employees, to recognize obstacles, problems and success, and to train
employees (Stone, 2006; Leonard-Barton, 1992). Top management characteristically requires
different knowledge and skills in different growth periods and thus continuously develops its
organizational learning process so as to obtain that knowledge (Omerzel and Antoncic, 2008).
Based on these arguments, we formulate the following proposition:
Proposition 1: Top management Support influences positively technological skills development.
Based in the study of innovation capabilities scholars have found that TMS to technology
strengthen technological acquisition in a company (Petroni and Panciroli, 2002). Technological

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
42
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
acquisitions indicate “the firm´s capability to identify and acquire externally generated
knowledge that is critical to its operations” (Zahra and George, 2002, p. 189).
The choice from top managers to invest in technology and knowledge acquisition may be the
result of a deliberate and conscious strategic decision (McLoughlin et al., 1985). In this sense,
apart from investments exist top managerial strategies for introducing new technologies in the
company, may be seen as the outcome of a process of social choice and political negotiation
(Cohen and Levinthal, 1989; Narayanan, 1998; Haro-Domínguez et al., 2010). Consequently,
both financial and strategic top management support improve technology acquisition and
knowledge so as to bring product or process development (Petroni and Panciroli, 2002).
This idea is shared by Jason et al. (2010), who on its study of space technology, a field where
acquiring technology is really difficult, demonstrated that managers had to support technological
acquisition to underpin economic growth and development. However, this support was not only a
financial support but it is necessary a technological infrastructure skills, knowledge and human
resources to create a sustainable environment (Jason et al., 2010). Consequently, top
management support to technology motivates technological acquisition in different ways.
In a study about DaimlerChrysler, it was found that internal development is needed in a
company; however the managerial support in the firm also let knowledge and technology
acquisition, what enhanced the company to be more dynamic and competitive in the current
struggling environment (Göker and Roth-Berghofer, 1999).
Park and Ghauri (2011) give solid arguments to show that top managerial support is completely
needed so as to promote foreign technology and know-how, since technology and knowledge
acquisition is highly dependent on support of managers and on communication, appreciation and
mutual reliance among employees (Park and Ghauri, 2011). In this regard, organizations with top
management support to technology promote technological acquisition and diffusion of ideas,
solutions and know-how throughout innovation systems (Doloreux and Melançon, 2009).

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
43
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
These companies which support innovation have a more systematic focus by providing a
knowledge platform for learning (Doloreux and Melançon, 2009; Ferreira & Fernandes, 2011).
In these companies learning by doing and R&D investments were indispensable so as to change
the ancient methodology of production and acquire new technology which enables the firms to
shift to a different technology frontier with the improvement in the competitiveness and the
market share of the firm (Narayanan, 1998). In other way, these companies, which invest in
R&D, also develop and maintain their broader capabilities to assimilate and exploit externally
available information. Likewise, many scholars have found that managerial efforts are one of the
most important means in acquisition of technology (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989; Narayanan,
1998). Based in all these arguments we make the following proposition:
Proposition 2: Top Management Support positively influences totechnological
acquisition.
The organization must have a robust technological infrastructure on which the frequently
changing strategy and tactics of a contemporary company can be built quickly (Byrd and Turner,
2001). This technological infrastructure is defined as “the enabling foundation of shared
technology capabilities upon which the entire business depends” (Byrd and Turner, 2001, p. 42).
The infrastructure is a set of shared, tangible technological resources that form the foundation for
business applications (Duncan, 1995). It is part of the organization’s capacity that is intended to
be shared and, thus, a flexible technological infrastructure is the new competitive weapon crucial
to developing sustained competitive advantage (Byrd and Turner, 2001) and it has been cited as
an extremely valuable resource by manyresearchers (e.g. Rockart et al., 1996). An effective
infrastructure is a pre-requisite for doing business globally, where the sharing of information and
knowledge is vital (Rockart et al., 1996; Ferreira and Fernandes, 2011). On the other hand, as we
mentioned above, TMS is one of the most often-cited concepts in the technology literature
(Ghosh et al., 2001) and it is a “perceived powerful source” (Leonard-Barton and Deschamps,
1988, p. 1254).
Top management support influences technological infrastructure development since
technological infrastructure demands strong and committed top management to guide the

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
44
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
initiative and develop a working environment that supports technology (Ghosh et al., 2001). Top
management support aims to create a technological infrastructure with ever-improving software
modules, developedand shared by all those concerned with company (Overeem et al., 2013). The
results of the Van de Ven´s (1993) study provide some evidence on the contribution of
managerial skills to the infrastructure variables.
A large number of studies have found that technological skills maybe seen as a hindrance to
technological infrastructure development (Van de Ven, 1993; Rockart et al., 1996; Ross et al.,
1996). Nowadays, at Universities a greater appreciation of technological skills, competencies and
knowledge permits a well-built infrastructure which let advantages and benefits in this
competitive global technological environment (Byrd and Turner, 2001; Capuano et al., 2008).
The advantage of the firm is directly related to technological skills, competencies and knowledge
(Capuano et al., 2008). And the more technological skills, competencies or knowledge teachers -
managers on their case- have the more suitable advantage the firm will obtain. Based on these
arguments, we proposed the following proposition:
Proposition 3: Top management support influences positively technological infrastructure.
Technology integration consists of “the set of knowledge building activities through which novel
concepts are explored, evaluated and refined to provide the foundation for product development”
(Iansiti, 1995, p.521-522). The technology integration process frames the project, providing a
critical road map to guide design and development activities. This technological integration
enables the design and development of architecture which enable technological innovative
communication and corporate entrepreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Zhao et al., 2010).
The process of technological integration is determined by top managerial support to technology
(Iansiti, 1995).TMS is not only a function of effective planning at the strategic level but it
ensures technology integration in appropriate fashion to provide the right foundation for product
development activities (Iansiti, 1995).

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
45
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
A large number of studies (Cooper 1985; Leonard-Barton and Deschamps, 1988; Iansiti, 1995;
Burger-Helmchen, 2008) assert that to be successful, an entrepreneurial firm must
technologically integrate links such as Science-based firms or technological institutions, other
firms in the industry, customers, products optimization and services and must be able to tie and
support them together (Burger-Helmchen, 2008). That is to say, all these elements have to be
taken into account to incentive technological integration. Furthermore, TMS is required so as to
obtain successful attempts at technological integration, which will move towards a new
product/process development (Smith and Offodile, 2008; Georgiadis et al., 2012).
Resources and competencies in network structure, communication and co-ordination needs to be
maintained by top managers (Cooper and Stephenson, 2012). These top management assets
enhance technological integration in the company with the purpose of gaining visibility across
their extended network, responding quickly to changing business conditions and getting better
results in the firm (Zhao et al., 2010; Cooper and Stephenson, 2012).
The importance of industry´s technological integration as an opportunity creator is supported by
studies that managers who leave existing firms to form high-technology companies (Cooper,
1985) might eliminate technology barriers to entry by the knowledge they gain in previous
positions and by the availability of venture capital (Florida and Kenney 1988). Consequently,
TMS is required to obtain technological integration in the company. We argue that the effective
top management support to technology is founded on a set of managerial skills and routines that
help the technology integration transfer. Taken into account this previous literature we formulate
the following proposition:
Proposition 4: Top management support influences positively technological integration.
2.2 The influence of Technological Skills on technological acquisition, technological
infrastructure and technological integration
Leonard-Barton (1992) emphasizes that technological skills constitute the entire technical
system, which usually traces its roots back to the firm’s first products. Technological skills
define the roots of a firm’s sustainable competitive advantage (Lee et al., 2001).

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
46
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
On the other hand, one of the most important strategic decisions management faces in today’s
globally competitive environment surrounds the issue of technology acquisition or development.
In the past, firms typically relied on internally developed technical and innovative capabilities or
acquired those capabilities in part or in total when acquiring or merging with another firm.
External technology acquisitions indicate the firm’s capacity to identify and acquire externally,
the knowledge generated by other firms that is crucial for a particular firm’s activity (Zahra and
George, 2002).
The decision to develop technology and innovative capabilities internally or acquire them via
external means is a central component of any technology strategy (Zahra et al., 1994). There has
been much evidence in recent years that firms do not trust exclusively in their internal resources
to maintain their technological competitiveness (Narula, 2001). Rapid technological
development, the complexity of products and services, and their high costs are making firms
increasingly conscious of the limitations involved in exclusive internal development of their
technology (Haro-Domínguez et al., 2010). Acquiring technology through external sources may
facilitate rapid development and deployment of commercial technologies and products while
gaining access to state of the art technology, but it can also undermine the need to maintain and
upgrade internal capabilities. Firms must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of
acquiring technology internally or externally to ensure the ability to compete effectively in
today’s market.
External technology sourcing strategies may be seen as a means of complementing and
leveraging internal skills, a concept expressed throughout the technology management literature
(Jones et al., 2001; Zahra and George, 2002). This is especially important for those firms with
high technological skills, as they must react rapidly to the changes that occur. This belief can
justify the greater preference of managers of these firms show toward external acquisitions of
technology in order to maintain the level of technology and innovation of their firm (Eisenhardt
and Schoonhoven, 1996). The intensity and speed of firm technological skills to identify and
gather knowledge can determinate technology acquisition. The greater firm technological
capabilities the more quickly the firm will acquire technology (Zahra and George, 2002). The

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
47
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
direction of accumulated knowledge can also influence the path that the firm follows in obtaining
external knowledge. These activities vary in the richness and complexity, highlighting a need to
have different areas of expertise within a firm to successfully import external technologies. Firms
with technological skills might well combine their technology with other complementary assets
providing from external technological acquisition. Technological capabilities provide firms with
the high levels of internal variety that are necessary to address external technological acquisition
(Giarratana and Torrisi, 2010). Based on these arguments, we can propose the following
hypothesis.
Proposition 5: Technological skills influences positively technological acquisition.
Nowadays, knowledge in companies is important as it will motivate scientific organizations and
employers so as to develop key competencies and professionally significant personal qualities
(Martin-Rojas et al., 2011; Mayorova, 2011). In this regard, these key competencies and personal
qualities let us analyze an infrastructure on technology, which is improved by technological
knowledge (Azzone and Maccarrone, 1997).
A flexible technological infrastructure is developed by a large number of factors such as data
transparency, compatibility, application, connectivity, technological skills, boundary skills,
functional skills, and technology management (Churchill, 1979). And Byrd and Turner (2001)
studied that managerial technology skills were a structural capability that seems to make a
difference in a technological platform or infrastructure. Consequently these higher technological
skills let a strong motivation of employees to obtain a consistent and significant fundamental
technological knowledge; that is to say technological infrastructure is stronger (Churchill, 1979;
Mayorova, 2011).
This assertion is not only typical in the field of technology firms; in the tourism sector
technological skills are undoubtedly needed to outstand over the competitors (Bordoni, 2011). In
hospitals, it has been shown that skills based on technology let a better management of
technological infrastructure (Wainwright and Waring, 2000). This study was characterized by
preoccupation with technological issues, standards and procurement procedures which would

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
48
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
allow separate technological applications to communicate and share information (Wainwright
and Waring, 2000).
Similarly, at the University, the place where future employees are trained; technology is being
really developed in order to increase its technological infrastructure (Mayorova, 2011). The
students more innovative, with higher technological skills, formed a stronger
technologicalinfrastructure. The higher technological skills of alumni at the university require a
development and improvement of technical or technological infrastructure (Mayorova, 2011).
On the opposite way it has been found that the low level of technological skills in the company
was translated into one of the most common weaknesses for technological knowledge in the
firm, as there might be less support in the phase of implementation of innovation and training
(Azzone and Maccarrone, 1997). Consequently, the lower the level of technological skills is the
weaker technological infrastructure a company has.
To sum up, the higher availability of general technological skills let a wider infrastructure in
technology for any particularly specialized expertise (Wainwright and Waring, 2000; Byrd and
Turner, 2001; Mayorova, 2011). Then, we formulate the following proposition:
Proposition 6: Technological skills are positively associated with technological
infrastructure.
It has previously shown that if managers have better technological skills their meaningful
participation will enable the technological integration undoubtedly needed in order to alleviate
the adverse effects of uncertainty and promote employee participation in this current
technological change process, what reduces uncertainty (Larsen et al., 1991).
It has been showed that the more effective organizations dedicate substantial resources to the
execution of distinct and explicit technology integration activities, which are based on the broad
impact of novel technological skills of employees and managers (Iansiti, 1995). Furthermore,
technological integration process thus affects all members of an organization, but may have

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
49
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
special relevance for managerial personnel, who carry particular responsibility for introducing
and implementing new technological developments (Larsen et al., 1991).
In this regard, technological skills facilitate technological integration in training process, which
will promote increased interaction across disciplines and improve workers’ knowledge in using
technology in their subject specific areas of specialization (Aburime and Uhomoibhi, 2010).
An effective integration in technology is not only a function of effective planning at the strategic
level and strong project management, but success is also linkedto technological skills which
ensure an organization´s knowledge base (Iansiti, 1995). The depth of knowledge needed to
understand technological skills will suppose a stronger technological integration in the company,
what enable a competitive advantage difficult to imitate (Iansiti, 1995).
In the field of education, it has been shown that a large number of barriers impacting
technological integration such as the absence of teacher´s technological skills which do not let
develop technological integration at schools (Ertmer et al., 2012). As main solution they propose
to promote teachers´ and student´s knowledge through technological integration. Consequently,
the higher technological skills teachers or students obtain, the better technological integration
may well be obtained in a company (Capuano et al., 2008; Ertmer et al., 2012).
On their project EMBLEMA at Salermo University it was found that the optimization of
business technological integration processes took into account technological skills among other
capabilities (Capuano et al., 2008). The advantage was obtained because of the technological
integration processes which were transmitted bytechnological skills, knowledge or competencies
that managers possessed. Consequently, technological skills facilitate technological integration
processes so as to obtain a more suitable and personalized advantage (Capuano et al., 2008).
Likewise, Ertmer et al., (2012) have found that managers who worked with less technological
skills struggled to achieve higher levels of technology integration. That is to say, managers who
were engaged in exemplary, innovative or best skills were related to more technology
integration. They also found that the technological attitude and beliefs and technological

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
50
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
knowledge and skills were the strongest contributing factors to their abilities to integrate
technology (Ertmer et al., 2012). Then the managers’ possession of specific technological skills
makes a technological integration process more easily than processes with managers who do not
possess them (Larsen et al., 1991). With all this previous literature we can formulate the
following proposition:
Proposition 7: Technological skills are positively associated with technological
integration.
2.3 The influence of technological acquisition, technological infrastructure and technological
integration on corporate entrepreneurship
Corporate entrepreneurship refers to ‘‘the process by which firms notice opportunities and act to
creatively organize transactions between factors of production so as to create surplus value’’
(Jones and Butler, 1992, p. 735). Corporate entrepreneurship can be considered important for
organizational survival, profitability, growth and renewal (Zahra, 1996). In this way, attracting
resources from external providers is critical to the survival and growth of an entrepreneurial
venture (Shane, 2003). The decision to develop technology and innovative capabilities internally
or acquire them via external means applies both to the corporate-sponsored venturing efforts as
well as new venture efforts undertaken by independent entrepreneurs (Zahra 1996). Firms must
consider the trade-offs and associated risks inherent in this decision. Developing technology
internally ensures greater control over its distribution and serves to maintain a viable technical
capability for the firm but may require greater resources than the firm is willing or able to
commit. However, acquiring technology through external sources may facilitate rapid
development and deployment of commercial technologies and products while gaining access to
state of the art technology, but it can also undermine the need to maintain and upgrade internal
capabilities. Firms must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of acquiring
technology internally or externally to ensure the ability to compete effectively in today’s market
(Haro-Domínguez et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2001).
Entrepreneurs can take existing knowledge through technological acquisition that allows firms to
identify potential market opportunities, and then act upon them (Woolley, 2010). So,

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
51
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
technological acquisition opens an opportunity space for new entrants to develop a nascent
technology. Technological acquisitions also provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to exploit
nascent innovations. Entrepreneurs identify such opportunities through the discovery and
creation of knowledge, technology, and ideas (Alvarez and Barney, 2007). Without the
identification of opportunities, entrepreneurship is ‘fruitless’ (Dean and Meyer, 1996: 110). And
while opportunity recognition may be subjective, an entrepreneur identifies the opportunity and
its potential value (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) or creates an opportunity and exploits it.
Thus, the opportunities must be not only discernible as a viable market business, but also
attractive. For a firm it is beneficial to use its internal and external sources in the pursuit of a
competitive advantage by engaging in entrepreneurial activities (Zahra, 2008).
Proposition 8: Technological acquisition influences positively corporate entrepreneurship.
In an industry with a well-established infrastructure, where knowledge and technologies are
clearly joined and enforceable (Van de Ven, 1993); a new entrepreneurial venture is easier to be
launched and the strategy maybe more successful to achieve a competitive advantage (Antoncic
and Hisrich, 2001; Byrd and Turner, 2001; Van de Ven et al., 2007). Consequently, technology,
among other features, is a key component of infrastructure to obtain more entrepreneurship (Van
de Ven, 1993).
A large number of studies confirm this direct relationship between technological infrastructure
and corporate entrepreneurship (Haug and Ness, 1992; Venkataraman, 2004; Koh, 2006; Van de
Ven et al. 2007; Burg et al., 2008). Burg et al. (2008) support the idea that infrastructure is a well
developer of spin-off ventures, which reinforce corporate entrepreneurship (Antoncic and
Hisrich, 2001) by providing venturing skills and new entrepreneurial knowledge.
In a similar way, it has been shown that technology-based infrastructure not only shapes the
firm’s technological competencies but it is also effective in incorporating them into the firm’s
organizational context, making them apparent on all organizational levels and giving meaning to
all learning processes (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Martin-Rojas et al. , 2011). Furthermore,

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
52
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
technological infrastructure is related not only to technological knowledge but to more in-depth
corporate entrepreneurship (Byrd and Turner, 2001).
In a Dutch University of technology, Burg et al. (2008) opened a bridge between managerial
practices and academic research as they found that the framework with scientific knowledge
proposed by spin off ventures was link to the development of corporate entrepreneurship in a
company, by the pragmatic and creative work of practitioners (Burg et al., 2008).
Other scholars have shown that intangible assets, such as advanced telecommunications and
transportation system, of technological infrastructure are a necessary prerequisite for corporate
entrepreneurship in technology (Venkataraman, 2004). Then, this technological infrastructure
allows the development of corporate entrepreneurship so as to facilitate access to capital and
rapid productivity improvements (Koh, 2006). A favorable technological infrastructure is
certainly important in ensuring the success of corporate entrepreneurship (Venkataraman, 2004).
In fact, Venkataraman (2004) compared some regions of United States and observed that Silicon
Valley is more successful than Central Virginia or Albany in terms of corporate entrepreneurship
because of the presence and absence of technological infrastructure, among other intangible
factors (Venkataraman, 2004).
In this sense, firm´s technological infrastructure let develop innovation capabilities and
encourage corporate entrepreneurship (Koh, 2006); since it incentives systems which establish a
structure for science and innovation. Furthermore, this technological infrastructure let
entrepreneurs make strategic choices on activities to undertake and achieve corporation
objectives (Van de Ven et al. 2007).
Furthermore, the more developed technological infrastructure, the higher and faster
corporate entrepreneurship in the firm. With all this previous literature we formulate the
following proposition:
Proposition 9: Technological infrastructure is positively associated with corporate
entrepreneurship.

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
53
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
The integration of innovation, adaptation and acceptance of change (technological or otherwise)
hinge upon the promotion of an organizational culture and climate which encourage corporate
entrepreneurship through reward creativity and risk-taking, as well as the capacity to assimilate
new processes and procedures (Larsen et al., 1991; Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001).
Along the history, technology has obtained some key moments –like wireless technology around
1970´s, Internet´s birth in 1990´s or current technological era with spin off companies- in which
new services has been required and completely new systems have been built. Nowadays, a
demanding integration of several technologies is required. A mandate to develop such a system
from policy makers including governments or corporate boards –entrepreneurs among others-are
needed (Lyytinen and Fomin, 2002).
Then, technological integration creates a need to find organizational arenas in which the
entrepreneurs may work in order to bring both technological and social challenges into this arena
(Lyytinen and Fomin, 2002). In this regard, the integration of the firm's technology with other
exiting technologies is needed so as to Science-based entrepreneurship may obtain an
outstanding service (Burger-Helmchen, 2008).
This technological integration on the organization improves corporate entrepreneurship, since
entrepreneurs become a critical nexus in the growth of both technological competence and the
refinement of service concepts (Lyytinen and Fomin, 2002).
Furthermore, integration of technological knowledge in the firm is needed to successfully
accommodate the innovative patented technology and to commercially exploit it, what is a core
element of entrepreneurship in the company to make the patented technology suitable for the
market sphere and develop specific entrepreneurial practices, like knowledge-based activities or
microprocessors, radio and switching technologies (Burger-Helmchen, 2008).
This idea is even easier to see in dynamic industries which are highly technologically integrated
industries, which increases the opportunities available to new ventures formations, and

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
54
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
consequently increases corporate entrepreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). Indeed, the
presence of highly technologically integrated incumbents may create opportunities for new firms
that pursue more flexible and responsive impartation strategies (Barreyre, 1988).
We thus may expect highly integrated industries to exhibit greater inertia and more new venture
formations (Dean and Meyer, 1996) and consequently more corporate entrepreneurship
(Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001).
In a study in The Netherlands, with nanotechnology firms, it has been found that technological
infrastructures and technological integration are completely needed in order to reach an
entrepreneurial organization (Robinson et al., 2007). With all this previous literature it may be
proposed that:
Proposition 10: Technological integration influences positively on the corporate
entrepreneurship.
2.4 The influence of corporate entrepreneurship on organizational performance
Corporate entrepreneurship is a strategic variable in successful organizations (Antoncic and
Hisrich, 2001; Antoncic and Prodan, 2008; Zahra, 1996), since it has its consequences for
organisational survival, growth and performance (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001). Entrepreneurs
who identify their firms’ positions in the competitive network of the industry correctly
strengthen and engage opportunities and neutralize the negative implications of threats and
weaknesses, thus obtaining higher performance (Antoncic and Prodan, 2008; Martin-Rojas et al.,
2011). So, companies that institute corporate entrepreneurship as a process that infiltrates and
spreads throughout the entire organization tend to achieve positive results over time in the sense
of improved internal efficiencies, higher employee morale and major improvements in
performance.
Past research has presented much evidence for therelationships of corporate entrepreneurship to
organizational growth and profitability (Covin and Slevin, 1991; Zahra and Covin, 1995;
Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Zahra, 2008). A longitudinal study by Zahra and Covin (1995) in

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
55
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
which they examined the longitudinal impact of corporate entrepreneurship on a financial
performance index, composed of both growth and profitability indicators, provides the best
evidence of a strong relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and the performance.
Antoncic and Hisrich (2001) study demonstrate that corporate entrepreneurship makes a
difference on the company’s performance, observed by growth and profitability. Moreover,
Zahra and Garvis (2000) in their research showed that even international entrepreneurial efforts
can enhance the growth and profitability of a company’s performance.
Moreover, corporate entrepreneurship was found to be related to the profitability of large firms
(Covin and Slevin, 1991; Zahra and Covin, 1995; Zahra, 1996). Antoncic and Hisrich (2001)
found a relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and performance for small, medium-
sized and large firms from various industries in Slovenia, but not in the USA. Similarly, Zahra
and Garvis (2000) shows that international corporate US companies’ entrepreneurship was
positively associated with the firm’s overall intensity, as well as its foreign profitability and
growth of US firms.
For technological organizations, various current studies indicate a positive relationship between
corporate entrepreneurship and organizational performance (Audretsch et al., 2008; Martin-
Rojas et al., 2011). Audretsch et al. (2008) show that positive economic performance in high-
tech or information and communication technology companies depend on entrepreneurship
capital, the capacity of a region to support entrepreneurs.Alternatively, companies may license
the use of their technology to other companies within the industry, thus creating new business
and enhancing their revenue and profits. Therefore, technological opportunities in an industry are
associated positively with increased CE (Zahra, 2008).
Hence, we would expect a general positive relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and
performance in terms of profitability and growth as the following proposition suggests.
Proposition 11: Corporate entrepreneurship influences positively organizational performance.
3 Conclusions, limitations and future research

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
56
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
In this quickly changing world, technological companies are hardly competing to each other in
order to reach a competitive advantage which makes them differentiate of other and obtain a
good position or higher performance (Ross et al., 1996; Byrd and Turner, 2001). To arrive at that
purpose, the results of this research have underlined that exploiting advantage of TMS will
impact their firm’s access to the technological skilled research personnel and the streams of
knowledge upon which the firm will develop its specific dynamic capabilities (Leonard-Barton,
1987, 1992; Ferreira and Fernandes, 2011).
Top managers in firms invest in R&D not only to pursue directly new process and product
innovation, but also to increase imported technology and accomplish the trajectory shifts (Cohen
and Levinthal, 1989). Top managers may promote corporate entrepreneurship through external
technology acquisition, because they try to grow beyond the limits set by the resources they
currently control.This let them to acquire more technological investment in their firm.
Then, organizations with TMS to technology promote technological acquisition and diffusion of
ideas, solutions and know-how throughout innovation systems (Doloreux and Melançon, 2009).
Apart from acquiring technology from external sources managers also support: Technological
integration so as to enhance experiential learning as a strategy for continuing personnel
development (Capuano et al., 2008); technological infrastructure which enable a competitive
advantage for technology and support the design, development and implementation of
entrepreneurial business applications (Byrd and Turner, 2001) and technological skills which are
key for development and the need for greater technological integration of learning experiences
(Larsen et al., 1991).
Technological skilled people will increase and promote the creation of the excellence of the offer
and make the product´s special features easily recognizable to the broader public (Byrd and
Turner, 2001). Then, the advantage of the firm is directly related to technological skills,
competencies and knowledge (Capuano et al., 2008). These capabilities are a structural
components that seems to make a difference in a technological platform and promote innovative
capabilities and an organizational technological infrastructure (Byrd and Turner, 2001), what can
shape the promotion of corporate entrepreneurship through government assistance, grants,

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
57
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
venture capital, collaborative network or new spin off ventures (Koh, 2006; Burg et al., 2008;
Cooper and Stephenson, 2012).
Likewise, this technologically skilled people enable technological acquisition processes in the
company, which can be measured by observing growth and change in innovative knowledge and
technologies which are integrated to develop entrepreneurial competencies (Heffner and Sharif,
2008).
In this regard, a greater appreciation of the technological skills all over levels is an essential
element of the technological integration process, as let advantages and benefits in this
competitive global technological environment (Capuano et al., 2008).
In this sense, in The Netherlands, with nanotechnology firms, it has been found that
technological infrastructures besides technology acquisition and integration processes are
completely needed in order to become an entrepreneurial organization (Robinson et al., 2007).
Since they incentives systems which establish a structure for science and innovation; what
creates an environment for technological endeavors, develops innovation capabilities and ensures
the sustainable growth of corporate entrepreneurship (Koh, 2006).
All these technological aspects enhance the creation and strengthening of a corporate
entrepreneurship, because they may well improve intelligent access to local, specific cultural
information so as to attract potential entrepreneurs (Bordoni, 2011). These entrepreneurs
compete and make cooperation among them and take advantages of technological infrastructure
(Van de Ven et al., 2007), such as social and technological volatility which is a common
denominator of technological corporate entrepreneurship throughout the world and key for a
supportive entrepreneurial culture (Eisendhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996).
Finally, entrepreneurs engage opportunities and neutralize the negative implications of threats
and weaknesses, thus obtaining higher performance (Antoncic and Prodan, 2008; Martin-Rojas
et al., 2011). Moreover, with the knowledge acquired and the organizational innovation
developed in the company along with technology, entrepreneurs should be able to engage in

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
58
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
entrepreneurial activities and obtain higher levels of growth and profitability than organizations
that do not (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001), thereby obtaining improved internal efficiencies and
major improvements in performance (Antoncic and Prodan, 2008).
3.1 Limitations and future research
Firstly, this research is a preliminary work and we have no data to contrast our preposition, at the
moment. This point will be solved if the research is interesting for the scientific community.
Hypotheses indicate the relationships among some technological assets and corporate
entrepreneurship with organizational performance. It should be noted that other technological
assets might well be taken into account, like technological organizational slack or technological
distinctive competencies (Real et al., 2006; Danneels, 2008; Martin et al., 2011;). Besides,
different topics such as evaluation of funding objectives (Georgiadis et al., 2012) or applications
of networks to enlarge corporate entrepreneurship research (Lee et al., 2001; Robinson et al.,
2007).
As well, a study of this technology in the different components of corporate entrepreneurship
would be really interesting so as to observe in which point of corporate entrepreneurship the
influence of technology is stronger.
4 References.
Aburime, M.O., & Uhomoibhi, J.O. (2010). Impact of technology and culture on home
economics and nutrition science education in developing countries. Multicultural Education &
Technology Journal, 4(1), 4-16.
Alvarez, S.A., & Barney, J.B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of
entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1 (1-2), 11-26.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural
validation. Journal of Business Venturing. 16(5), 495-527.
Antoncic, B., & Prodan, I. (2008). Alliances, corporate technological entrepreneurship and firm
performance: Testing a model on manufacturing firms. Technovation, 28, 257–265.
Audretsch, D. B., Bönte, W., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship capital and its impact on
knowledge diffusion and economic performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 687–698.

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
59
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
Azzone, G., & Maccarrone, P. (1997). The emerging role of lean infrastructures in technology
transfer: The case of the Innovation Plaza project. Technovation, 17(7), 391-402.
Barreyre, P.Y. (1988). The concept of "impartition" policies: A different approach to vertical
integration strategies. Strategic Management Journal. 9, 507-520.
Bordoni, L. (2011). Technologies to support cultural tourism for Latin Latium. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 2(2), 96-104.
Burg, E.V., Romme, G.L., Gilsing, V.A., & Reymen, I.M.M. (2008). Creating University Spin-
Offs: A Science-Based Design Perspective. The Journal of Product Innovation Management,
25, 114–128.
Burger-Helmchen, T. (2008). Plural-entrepreneurial activity for a single start-up: A case study.
Journal of High Technology Management Research, 19, 94-102.
Byrd, T.A., & Davidson, N.W. (2003). Examining possible antecedents of IT impact on the
supply chain and its effect on firm performance. Information & Management, 41, 243-255.
Byrd, T.A., & Turner, D. (2001). An exploratory analysis of the value of the skills of IT
personnel: their relationship to IS infrastructure and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences,
32(1), 21–54.
Capuano, N., Gaeta, M., Ritrovato, P., & Salermo, S. (2008). How to integrate technology-
enhanced learning with business process management. Journal of Knowledge Management,
12(6), 56-71.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.
Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D.
Economics Journal, 99, 569–596.
Cooper, A.C. (1985). The role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth-oriented
firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 75-86.
Cooper, T., & Stephenson, M.O. Jr. (2012). Managing Networks as Learning Organizations in
the Public Sector. The International Journal of Management Science and Information
Technology, 3(1), 1-37.
Covin, J.G., & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16, 7-25.
Danneels, E. (2008). Organizational antecedents of second-order competences. Strategic
Management Journal, 29, 519-543.
Dean, T.J., & Meyer, G.D. (1996). Industry environments and new venture formations in U.S.
manufacturing: A conceptual and empirical analysis of demand determinants. Journal of
Business Venturing, 11, 107-132.
Doloreux, D., & Melançon, Y. (2009). Innovation-support organizations in the marine science
and technology industry: The case of Quebec’s coastal region in Canada. Marine Policy, 33,
90-100.
Duncan, N.B. (1995). Capturing flexibility of information technology infrastructure: A study of
resource characteristics and their measure. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(2),
37-57
Eisenhardt, K.M., & Schoonhoven, C.B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance
formation: Strategic and social effects entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7(2), pp.
136-150.

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
60
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendrur, E., & Senderur, P. (2012). Teacher
beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education,
59, 423-435.
Ferreira, J.J., & Fernandes, C. (2011). The Role Played by Knowledge Intensive Business
Services in Knowledge Economy. The International Journal of Management Science and
Information Technology, 2(2): 55-80.
Florida, R., & Kenney, M. (1988). Venture capital and high technology entrepreneurship. Journal
of Business Venturing, 3, 301-319.
Georgiadis N., Iliopoulou, D., Manthou, V. , & Koutsouris, D. (2012). Qualitative and
quantitative methodological approach for evaluating public R&D funding. The International
Journal of Management Science and Information Technology, 6(3): 1-26.
Ghosh, B.C., Liang, T.W., Meng, T.T., & Chan, B. (2001). The key success factors, distinctive
capabilities, and strategic thrusts of top SMEs in Singapore. Journal of Business Research, 51,
209-221.
Giarratana, M.S., & Torrisi, S. (2010). Foreign entry and survival in a knowledge-intensive
market: Emerging economy countries’ international linkages, technology competences, and
firm experience. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 85-104.
Göker, M.H., & Roth-Berghofer, T. (1999). The development and utilization of the case-based
help-desk support system HOMER. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 12,
665-680.
Haro-Domínguez, M.C., Ortega-Egea, T., & Tamayo-Torres, I. (2010). Proactive orientation and
its influence for technology acquisition. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(7), 953-
970.
Haug, P., & Ness, P. (1992). Technological infrastructure and regional economic development of
biotechnology firms. Technovation, 12(7), 423-432.
Heffner, M., & Sharif, N. (2008). Knowledge fusion for technological innovation in
organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 79-93.
Iansiti, M. (1995). Technology integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex
environment. Research Policy, 24, 521-542.
Jason, S., da Silva Curiel, A., Liddle, D., Chizea, F., Leloglu, U.M., Helvaci, M., Bekhti, M.,
Benachir, D., Boland, L., Gomes, L., & Sweeting, M. (2010). Capacity building in emerging
space nations: Experiences, challenges and benefits. Advances in Space Research, 46, 571–581.
Jones, G.R., & Butler, J.E. (1992). Managing internal corporate entrepreneurship: An agency
theory perspective. Journal of Management, 18(4), 733-749.
Jones, G.K., Lanctot, A. Jr., & Teegen, H.J. (2001). Determinants and performance impacts of
external technology acquisition. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(3), 255-283.
Koh, W.T.H. (2006). Singapore’s transition to innovation-based economic growth:
infrastructure, institutions and government’s role. R&D Management, 36(2), 143-160.
Larsen, H., O´Driscoll, M.P., & Humphries, M. (1991). Technological innovation and the
development of managerial competencies. Technovation, 11(7), 419-428.
Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J.M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and
performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 615-
640.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1987). The case for integrative innovation: An expert system at digital.
Sloan Management Review, 29(1), 7-19.

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
61
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new
product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125.
Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988). Managerial influence in the implementation of
new technology. Management Science, 34(10), 1252-1265.
Lyytinen, K., & Fomin, V.V. (2002). Achieving high momentum in the evolution of wireless
infrastructures: The battle over the 1G solutions. Telecommunications Policy, 26, 149–170.
Martin-Rojas, R., Garcia-Morales, V. J., & Mihi-Ramirez, A. (2011). How can we increase
Spanish technology firm´s performance?. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(5), 759-778.
Mayorova, V. (2011). Integration of educational and scientific–technological areas during the
process of education of aerospace engineers. Acta Astronautica, 69, 737-743.
McLoughlin, I., Rose, H., & Clark, J. (1985). Managing the Introduction of New Technology.
Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 13(4), 251-262.
Narula, R. (2001). Choosing between internal and non-internal R&D activities: some
technological and economic factors. Technology Analysis & strategic Management. 13(3), 365-
387.
Narayanan, K. (1998). Technology acquisition, de-regulation and competitiveness: a study of
Indian automobile industry. Research Policy, 27, 215–228.
Omerzel, D.G., & Antoncic, B. (2008). Critical entrepreneur knowledge dimensions for the SME
performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(9), 1182-1199.
Overeem, I., Berlin, M.M., & Syvitski, P.M. (2013). Strategies for integrated modeling: The
community surface dynamics modeling system example. Environmental Modelling &
Software, 39, 314-321.
Park, B.I., & Ghauri, P.N. (2011). Key factors affecting acquisition of technological capabilities
from foreign acquiring firms by small and medium sized local firms. Journal of World
Business, 46, 116–125.
Petroni, A., & Panciroli, B. (2002). Innovation as a determinant of suppliers´ roles and
performances: An empirical study in the food machinery industry. European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 8, 135-149.
Real, J.C., Leal, A., & Roldan, J.L. (2006). Information technology as a determinant of
organizational learning and technological distinctive competencies. Industrial Marketing
Management, 35, 505-521.
Robinson, D.K.R., Rip, A., & Mangematin, V. (2007). Technological agglomeration and the
emergence of clusters and in nanotechnology. Research Policy, 36, 871–879.
Rockart, J.W.; Beath, C.M., & Goodhue, D.L. (1996). Eight imperatives for the new IT
organization. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 43-56.
Ross, J. W., Beath, C.M., & Goodhue, D.L. (1996). Develop long-term competitiveness through
IT assets. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 31-42.
Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship.The individual-Opportunity Nexus.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Smith, A.D., & Offodile, O.F. (2008). Strategic importance of team integration issues in product
development processes to improve manufacturability. Team Performance Management, 14(5),
269– 292.

The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology (IJMSIT)
Issue14 - (Oct-Dec 2014) (38 - 38)
62
ISSN 1923-0265 (Print) - ISSN 1923-0273 (Online) - ISSN 1923-0281 (CD-ROM), Copyright NAISIT Publishers 2014
Stone, L.J. (2006). Limitations of cleaner production programmes as organizational change
agents. II. Leadership, support, communication, involvement and programme design. Journal of
Cleaner production, 14, 15-30.
Teece, D.J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration,
collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.
Van de Ven A.H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship”. Journal of
Business Venturing, 8, 211–230.
Van de Ven, A.H., Sapienza, H.J., & Villanueva, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial pursuits of self- and
collective interests. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3-4), 353–370
Venkataraman, S. (2004). Regional transformation through technological Entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 153–167.
Wainwright, D., & Waring, T. (2000). The information management and technology strategy of
the UK National Health Service - Determining progress in the NHS acute hospital sector.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(3), 241-259.
Woolley, J. (2010). Technology emergence through entrepreneurship across multiple industries.
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 1-21.
Zahra, S.A. (1996). Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-
sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 289-
321.
Zahra, S.A. (2008). The virtuous cycle of discovery and creation of entrepreneurial
opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 243–257.
Zahra, S.A., & Covin, J.G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-
performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 43-58.
Zahra, S.A., & Garvis, D.M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm
performance: the moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business
Venturing, 15(5-6), 469-492.
Zahra, S.A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Re-conceptualization, and
Extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.
Zahra, S.A., Sisodia, R.S., & Das, S.R. (1994). Technological choices within competitive
strategy types. International Journal of Technology Management, 9(2), 172-195.
Zhao, X., Zhao, H., & Hou, J. (2010). B2B e-hubs and information integration in supply chain
Operations. Management Research Review, 33(10), 961 - 979.