The Influence of Knowledge Interaction and Open Innovation Ecosystems on Enterprise Innovation Performance in the Industrial Sector Using Structural Equation Modeling
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.4874Keywords:
Enterprise Innovation Performance, Knowledge Interaction Capability, Structural Equation Modeling, Mediation EffectsAbstract
Amidst accelerated technological iteration and innovation paradigm restructuring in the industrial sector, this study investigates how the synergistic mechanism between knowledge interaction capability (KIC) and open innovation ecosystems (OIE) drives enterprise innovation performance (EIP). Utilizing survey data from 314 high-tech manufacturing firms in Zhejiang Province, China, we constructed a structural equation model (SEM) integrating confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Bootstrap sampling (5,000 repetitions). The model incorporates three KIC dimensions – knowledge assimilation capability (KAC), transformation capability (KTC), and sharing capability (KSC) – dual OIE embeddedness (relational embeddedness NRE; structural embeddedness NSE), and EIP. Model fit indices significantly exceeded thresholds (χ²/df = 1.383, GFI = 0.907, CFI = 0.978, RMR = 0.044, RMSEA = 0.035). Core SEM path equations: EIP = 0.159·KAC + 0.164·KTC + 0.173·KSC + 0.247·NRE + 0.246·NSE, NSE = 0.294·KAC + 0.221·KTC + 0.180·KSC, NRE = 0.287·KAC + 0.215·KTC + 0.206·KSC. The results show that all three dimensions of KIC directly drive EIP (with KAC playing the most significant role), while the dual embeddedness of OIE plays a significant part of the mediating role, with KAC's mediating pathway through NSE contributing most prominently. This finding confirms the synergistic mechanism of “internal knowledge competence-external ecological embeddedness”. The study provides differentiated innovation strategies for industrial sectors: technology-intensive firms need to strengthen ecological niche construction to activate knowledge assimilation, while R&D-intensive organizations should optimize internal knowledge sharing to achieve direct value transformation
References
[1] Autio E, Thomas LDW. Innovation and sustainable growth: A paradigmatic shift in the industrial sector. J Bus Res. 2022;140:45-55.
[2] Grant RM. Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strat Manag J. 1996;17(S2):109–22.
[3] Teece DJ. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strat Manag J. 2007;28(13):1319-50.
[4] Chesbrough HW. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press; 2003.
[5] Laursen K, Salter A. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strat Manag J. 2006;27(2):131–50.
[6] Scuotto V, et al. Open innovation ecosystems in high-tech industries: A systemic approach to innovation dynamics. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2023; 178:121472.
[7] Lin L. The effect of knowledge interaction capabilities on innovation performance: A case study in Taiwan. J Knowl Manag. 2007;11(3):33-45.
[8] Dyer JH, Singh H. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev. 1998;23(4):660-79.
[9] Ma, X., Inthawongse, C., Amdee, N., & Thurapaeng, C. A SEM analysis of factors influencing knowledge sharing among research teams in Heilongjiang's educational institutions. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 2005;10(48s): 917-929.
[10] Gao Z, et al. Mediating role of open innovation ecosystems in the relationship between knowledge interaction capabilities and innovation performance: A systematic review. J Technol Transf. 2023;48(1):1-20.
[11] Huang X, et al. The relative contribution of internal and external capabilities to enterprise innovation performance: An empirical study in China. Ind Mark Manag. 2024; 95:82-94.
[12] Chen Q. Advancements in dynamic capabilities theory: A strategic perspective on innovation. J Bus Strategy. 2024;45(3):245-59.
[13] Tang F. Innovation ecosystems and their role in enterprise performance: Integrating theories of open innovation. Technol Innov Manag Rev. 2024;14(2):58-71.
[14] Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. Guilford Press; 2015.
[15] Wang L, Rhemtulla M. Sample size considerations for structural equation modeling: Practical recommendations for researchers. Struct Equ Modeling. 2021;28(1):28-42.
[16] Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 1988;103(3), 411-423.
[17] Teantavornwong D, Tonglim T, Thurapaeng C, Amdee N. Structural equation model analysis of factors affecting management efficiency in the resort industry. J Inf Syst Eng Manag. 2025;10(20s):703–8.
[18] Khawinpat P, Wiwatwongwana F, Ketsakorn A. Confirmatory factor analysis of safety culture in discrete manufacturing industry for Thailand. Eng Appl Sci Res. 2024;51(3):347–61.
[19] Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2024; 52(1), 1-23.
[20] Tang, D. D., & Wen, Z. L. Statistical approaches for testing common method bias: Problems and suggestions. Journal of Psychological Science, 2020;43(1):215–223.
[21] Wen, Z., & Ye, B. Applying structural equation modeling in the study of social science research. Journal of Applied Social Science Studies. 2014; 67(2), 133-145.
[22] Scuotto V, Santoro G, Bresciani S, Guidice MD. Shifting innovation boundaries: The role of ecosystem structural embeddedness. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2023; 186:122187.
[23] Ferraris A, Santoro G, Scuotto V. The role of knowledge sharing in enhancing innovation performance: A social capital perspective. J Knowl Manag. 2024;28(1):112-30.
[24] Huang L, Chen J, Zhang Y. Relational vs. structural embeddedness in innovation ecosystems: Contingent effects on knowledge transfer. Technovation. 2024; 129:102876.
[25] Wang C, Tonglim T, Thurapaeng C. Structural equation modeling of factors influencing the success of the wearable device industry in Wenzhou. J Inf Syst Eng Manag. 2025;10(10s): 605–18.
[26] Autio E, Thomas LDW. Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innovation management. In: The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford Univ Press; 2022. p.204-28.
[27] Nambisan S. Digital innovation ecosystems: A new paradigm for innovation management. Res Policy. 2023;52(8):112-123.
[28] Damrongsiri, T., Harnphanich, B., Snongtaweeporn, T., Channuwong, S., Benjawatanapon,W., Raktakanishtha, P., Wongsurakrai, S., & Siribensanont, C. Leadership of administrators for improving mission implementation of Thai Private Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Positive School Psychology. 2022; 6(9): 2558-2568.
[29] Channuwong, S., Tongvijit, M., Bangbon, P., Siripap, P. Weerachareonchai, P., Rattananda, N., Samapat, P., & Wongwean, B. The influence of cultural factors on organizational justice of public organizations in Bangkok. Journal of Neonatal Surgery.
2025; 14(3): 1-9.
[30] Bangbon, P., Channuwong, S., Amponstira, F., Rungsuk, A. & Snongtaweeporn, T. The influence of transformational leadership on organizational sustainability: A case study of business companies in Bangkok. Journal of Namibian Studies. 2023; 33: 4077-4095.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
