7JAIV10E2

Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119 ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

 Artigo Original

Innovation Among SMEs During the COVID-19 in Iran Innovación entre las pymes durante el COVID-19 en Irán Inovação entre PMEs durante o COVID-19 no Irã Howard E. Van Auken 1, Mohammad Fotouhi Ardakani 2, Shawn Carraher 3, Razieh Khojasteh Avorgani 4 1 2 3

PhD, Iowa State University MSc. Ardakan University PhD, University of Texas

4

Bsc., Ardakan University Corresponding Author: vanauken@iastate.edu Abstract As a worldwide disaster, the COVID-19 pandemic is profoundly affecting the development of the global economy and threatening the survival of SMEs worldwide. Therefore, this paper examines product and process innovation among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) during the COVID-19 crisis. So in order to answer this question, that how factors influence product and process innovation. Research methodology was of regression type and research instrument were interview and questionnaire.

This study has been conducted in a sample including 185 entrepreneurs of SMEs in Ardakan, Iran by using simple random sampling and path analysis method by SPSS26 software was applied for data analysis. The results of this study indicated that experience is one of the most important factors affecting innovation. Organization size and age are negatively associated with innovation. Employee training to facilitate cooperation as well as higher commitment to R&D can lead to greater innovation. In the COVID-19 period, government forced SMEs to create new product according to this situation. The results should be useful for owners of SMEs and providers of services to SMEs to better understand which factors affect adaptation of innovation. Embracing innovation as a core organization value can position SMEs to remain competitive.

Key words: Innovation, Entrepreneur, COVID-19, SMEs.

Resumo Como um desastre mundial, a pandemia COVID-19 está afetando profundamente o desenvolvimento da economia global e ameaçando a sobrevivência das PMEs em todo o mundo. Portanto, este artigo examina a inovação de produtos e processos entre as Pequenas e Médias Empresas (PMEs) durante a crise do COVID-19. Portanto, para responder a essa pergunta, veja como os fatores influenciam a inovação de produtos e processos. A metodologia da pesquisa foi do tipo regressão e os instrumentos de pesquisa foram entrevista e questionário. Este estudo foi conduzido em uma amostra incluindo 185 empreendedores de PMEs em Ardakan, Irã, usando amostragem aleatória simples e o método de análise de caminho pelo software SPSS26 foi aplicado para análise de dados. Os resultados deste estudo indicaram que a experiência é um dos fatores mais importantes que afetam a inovação. O tamanho e a idade da organização estão negativamente associados à inovação. O treinamento dos funcionários para facilitar a cooperação, bem como um maior comprometimento com a P&D, podem levar a uma maior inovação. No período COVID-19, o governo forçou as PMEs a criar novos produtos de acordo com essa situação. Os resultados devem ser úteis para que os proprietários de PMEs e prestadores de serviços às PMEs possam entender melhor quais fatores afetam a adaptação à inovação. Abraçar a inovação como um valor central da organização pode posicionar as PMEs para permanecerem competitivas.

Palavras-chave: Inovação, Empreendedor, COVID-19, PMEs.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

86

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

INTRODUCTION

Crisis are complex and their effects are felt immediately but over a long period of time (Ansell & Boin, 2019). The COVID-19 crisis was a low-probability event that was unpredictable and a surprise (Ratten & Paul, 2020; World Health Organization, 2020).

As Clark et al. (2020) state, there are many different ways countries have responded to the COVID-19 crisis depending on their regulatory policies. Therefore, the COVID19 pandemic represents a unique opportunity for entrepreneurs to transform existing practices (Kirk & Rifkin, 2020) and think in an entrepreneurial manner (Parnell, Widdop, Bond, & Wilson, 2020). An entrepreneurial attitude includes an emphasis on a personal control over a situation that incorporates some degree of innovation, which is important during the COVID-19 crisis (Brown & Rocha, 2020). This means emphasizing an individual's ability to change a course of action because of their self-esteem and need for achievement (Rauch & Hulsink, 2015).

The COVID-19 pandemic tremendously challenged governments, society, and SMEs worldwide (Clark et al., 2020). While some industries suffered from minor consequences, SMEs almost completely lost their business for months (Baum & Hai, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a changing environment posing many challenges that call for innovative solutions, leading to a changing innovation landscape (Ebersberger & Kuckertz, 2021) especially innovation in product and process.

Nowadays, SMEs are confronted by strong and sophisticated competition, which can easily provide the same or similar products/services in the market. Simultaneously, consumers are also changing their habits and expect additional benefits from purchased products/services. Consequently, SMEs need to continuously provide new products/services or improve their existing ones (Ramadani et al., 2019). Innovation is widely recognized as being important to the competitiveness of nations and SMEs (Madrid, García & Van Auken, 2013; Galia & Legros, 2004; Tourigny & Le, 2004).

Competitiveness is becoming more important due to increased global competition, decreased product lifecycles, increased technological capabilities of SMEs, and rapidly changing consumer demands (Madrid-Guijarro, Garcia & Van Auken, 2009).

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

87

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Innovation, which is defined as “the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (goods or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practice” (OECD, 2005), is considered as the tool that contributes to increasing SMEs performance and competitive advantages (Castaño, Méndez, & Galindo, 2016). According to Onetti et al. (2010), SMEs success and survival in the global markets depend on the joint effect of innovation and internationalization (Saridakis et al., 2019).

SMEs that successfully pursue innovation increase productivity, growth potential and the likelihood of survival (Cefis & Marsili, 2006; Freel, 2000) as well as contributing to economic growth, new employment, and increased national wealth (Nijkamp & Poot, 1997). SMEs that successfully pursue innovation increase productivity, growth potential, and likelihood of survival SMEs that do not embrace innovation risk becoming uncompetitive and under-preforming because of obsolete products and processes (Madrid-Guijarro et al., 2009; McAdam & McConvery, 2004).

SMEs play an important role in the economic development, job creation, and competitiveness of all countries (Wen-Hsien & Hsiso-Chiao, 2011; O'Regan et al., 2006). Large organizations make fewer innovative and technological advances due to their complex structure and low flexibility. Facilitating innovation and technological advancement through SMEs can be an effective policy approach to sustain economic development (Feyzbakhsh & Dehghanpour, 2005). Rapid changes in science and technology, continued economic and social challenges, and increases in poverty and unemployment have encouraged policymakers and scholars to focus greater attention on the role of SME development to help alleviate social challenges through economic growth (Baraati et al., 2007).

According to Lecerf (2012) when SMEs have the ability to develop and launch new products or services or implement new processes through innovation, they will be superior to their competitors. Therefore, SMEs that have the ability to produce new products/services or implement new ways of production will gain competitive advantages (Saridakis et al., 2019). SMEs that introduce new processes are more likely to introduce new products. Others argue that SMEs tend to focus their efforts more on product innovation than on process innovation to increase their profits and grow (e.g., Wolff & Pett, 2000). Product innovation is unquestionably the main

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

88

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

determinant of the establishment of new SMEs (Drucker, 2014; Pedeliento, Bettinellim, Andreini, & Bergamaschi, 2018).

This paper examines factors affecting innovation and investigates the product and process innovation (Nassimbeni, 2001). Very little research has been completed on SMEs in Iran, especially in the area of innovation. Specifically, this study examines factors (entrepreneur characteristics, internal issues, and external issues) affecting product and process innovation among 185 entrepreneurs in SMEs in Ardakan City, Iran during the COVID-19 crisis. The role of innovation in SMEs success is central to sustaining a competitive advantage in the market because SMEs with high innovation capacity can respond faster to environmental challenges (Jimens et al., 2008).

The next section of the paper presents previous research on innovation followed by presentation of the research questions and results. The last section of the paper presents a discussion of the results and conclusions.

Overview on studies about innovation in SMEs Research on innovation has emphasized the necessities of processes through which organizations renew their resource bases by both recombining their existing resources and introduce new resources and factors of production (Mahoney, 2005). It is tacit and explicit knowledge stocks tend to create the ability to respond to environmental challenges and market opportunities with a view to seeking out sustained competitive advantage (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996; Nonaka et al., 2000; Zollo & Winter, 2002).

While innovation has been a key factor in the long-term success of SMEs (Van Auken, Madrid & Gracia, 2008; Espallarado, 2008), embracing innovation to create a competitive advantage can be a challenge (Guidice et al., 2009). Innovation is, however, important for a companies' and nations' competitiveness and growth (OECD, 2005; Stock, Greis, & Fischer, 2002). Innovation is an important motivation for companies to collaborate (Fischer & Varga, 2002), and to be involved in interorganizational relationships (Gulati, Nohria, & Zaheer, 2000; Pittaway et al., 2004; Ritter & Gemünden, 2003).

Innovations can be classified as: product innovations process innovations and organizational innovations (Ramadani et al., 2019). Process innovators are different than product innovators (Hervas-Oliver et al., 2014). Furthemore, Higón & Driffield (2010) distinguish between product and process innovation activities. Following Chetty JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

89

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

& Stangl (2010), among others (e.g., Chiva, Ghauri, & Alegre, 2014; De Massis, Frattini, Pizzurno, & Cassia, 2015; Higón & Driffield, 2010; OECD, 2005), product innovation is defined in this research as the introduction of improved goods or services, for example to increase sales or improve customer service. Product innovation occurs when a SMEs implements a new or improved product or process that is new to the SMEs itself but has already been implemented in other SMEs (Saridakis et al., 2019).

In this research, process innovation is defined as the introduction of new methods of production that aim to decrease costs, increase quality, or improve services (Chetty & Stangl, 2010; Chiva et al., 2014; Higón& Driffield, 2010; OECD, 2005). According to Paul et al., (2017), SMEs can gain competitive advantages from innovation when the foreign market needs a specific type of service or product innovation.

Some researchers claim that process innovation that is based on new technological advancements is generally used to enhance product innovation (e.g., Lewandowska et al., 2016; Martínez-Ros, 1999; Martínez-Ros & Labeaga, 2009; Van Beers & Zand, 2014). Studies that take into account these complementarities between product and process innovation provide a useful insight but not a consistent picture. Innovations are considered to be building blocks of the future of the SMEs (Hisrich & Ramadani, 2017). Innovation represents a decisive and substantial factor in determining a SMEs performance and success (Gërguri-Rashiti et al., 2017; Pratali, 2003; Szerb & Ulbert, 2009). SMEs that do not innovate can be faced with underperformance or even failure (Ratten, 2015; Wilkinson & Thomas, 2014).

SMEs introduce innovation by doing something new or different (Van Auken, Madrid & Garcia, 2008; Garcia & Calantone, 2002). Successful implementation strategies often depend on issues that can facilitate the introduction of innovation such as bureaucracy, owner expertise, and closeness between owners and customers. Hausman (2005) reported that owners of SMEs who exert too much control and lack the appropriated training are limited in their ability to develop their SMEs innovative climate. Other studies found that barriers to innovation can be associated with cost, human resources development, organizational culture, and government policy (Mohen & Roller, 2005; Baldwin & Lin, 2002). Innovation can be especially limited in SMEs because of their more limited resource base (Hadjimanolis, 1999; Hewitt-Dundas, 2006).

Entrepreneurs and managers of SMEs can embrace product, technology and process innovation but also must consider organization culture, norms and values (Humphreys JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

90

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

et al., 2005). Khalil (2000) and Edwards (2002) believe that innovation can be conceptualized to represent products, services, or process by creating new markets or new applications of existing technologies, or to create and commercialize new technologies. Ho (2011) and Rowley et al. (2011) stated that innovation could be divided into four categories: product, process, location and opinions. From the process perspective, innovation means the operation of an idea that started the process and eventually leads to the production and distribution of a new product or service to market (Tidd, 2009). Innovation is not limited to the products or services but also includes changes in organizational processes (Boly et al., 2003).

Previous literature has examined factors affecting innovation in SMEs. In this paper these factors are classified into three main categories; entrepreneur characteristics, internal factors and external factors. This paper examines the factors affecting innovation and investigates product innovation (new design and new product…) and innovation in process (updating machinery and production process, etc.).

Research Framework This study focuses on the relationships between (1) entrepreneur characteristics, internal organizational characteristics and external factors and (2) product and process innovation (Fig 1). Product innovation refers to changes in changes in products while process innovation refers to changes in manufacturing processes or acquisition of new equipment (Madrid et al., 2009). The research examines the relationship between product and process innovation in relation to entrepreneurs, SMEs, and environmental characteristics during the COVID-19 period.

Adoption of innovation requires organization commitment and effort (Madrid, Garcia, & Van Auken, 2009; Acemoglu & Pischke, 1999). McAdam & McConvery (2004) concluded that weak management commitment is one of the more significant barriers to innovation among SMEs. Constraints arising from weak management support are an innovation choke point because innovation can disrupt established routines and schedules (Shanteau & Rohrbaugh, 2000). Hausman (2005) pointed out that SMEs managers often lack the types of education and training that have been linked with a successful innovation strategy. University students allows SMEs to achieve innovation and corporate entrepreneurships (Lazzarotti & Manzini, 2009; Secundo et al., 2017;

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

91

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Secundo et al., 2020). To sum up, personal initiative training increase in an aggregate index of innovation activities (Campos et al., 2017).

Information about a SMEs external environment, such as market opportunities, changes in technology, and government policy, impact managers’ adoption of innovation as a strategy to better meet customer needs and to help make the SMEs more competitive (Galia & Legros, 2004). The SMEs external environment includes a variety of influences and challenges that require SMEs to communicate to managers the importance of innovation as a core strategy that is needed to be competitive (Frishammar & Hörte, 2005). Katila & Shane (2005), Souitaris (2002), and Khan & Manopichetwattana (1989) found a positive relationship between economic conditions and innovation. Economic turbulence creates conditions that trigger SMEs to incorporate innovation into their business strategy to remain competitive (Madrid et al., 2009).

This discussion leads to the research issues investigated in the study: 1. What is the relationship between the (1) entrepreneur characteristics and (2) product and process innovation?

2. What is the relationship between the (1) organizational characteristics and (2) product and process innovation?

3. What is the relationship between the (1) external environment and (2) product and process innovation?

Variables Entrepreneur Characteristics 1. Degree (Education level). Nowadays, COVID-19 is posing a significant challenge to management education (Brammer & Clark, 2020; Marshall & Wolanskyj-Spinner, 2020). Characteristics, such as the adoption of technology and hiring human capital with applied education, help develop the learning-by doing – as well as the interacting mode of innovation (Ramadani, 2019). Hornaday & Tiken (1979) reported that successful entrepreneurs believe the younger generations are less educated level than the older population. In fact, the educational backgrounds of the managers, business owners and entrepreneurs have been found to be important to SME innovation (Koellinger, 2008). Broukhas & Nord (1979) found that self-employed are less JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

92

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

educated than managers. Ramadani et al. (2017) concluded that employees' level of education and skills, and labor cost had a positive impact on the ability of SMEs to invent and bring to the market innovative products.

2. Experience. Previous experience have significantly influence with innovation in SMEs (Robinson & Sexton, 1994). Innovation can be enhanced within an organization through the accumulation of the entrepreneur’s knowledge and experience (Koellinger, 2008). A large part of the relevant knowledge for innovation is of a tacit and unspoken nature, and is derived from experience (Arora & Gambardella, 1994). The entrepreneur’s practical knowledge is especially important within the process of organizational learning (Dosi, 1988), the development phase of the innovation process (OECD, 2002) and the process of incremental innovation (Malerba & Orsenigo, 1995).

Jennings (1994) reported that the majority technology companies prefer to hire employees with previous experience because of the added contribution to an innovative company culture. In addition, companies that have more experienced employees possess a higher level of innovation than those with fewer experienced employees (Buch et al., 2011). Fernades et al. (2013) and Roura (2009) found a positive, statistically significant impact of skilled and experienced labor force on product innovation.

3. Motivation. Entrepreneur motivation and attitude also affect SME innovation (Block & Sandner, 2009). Motivation is a prerequisite for creativity (Wong & Ladkin, 2008; Wong & Pang, 2003). Individual characteristics and traits associated with innovative behavior include curiosity, cognitive flexible, learning orientation, and perseverance (George, 2007; Shalley et al., 2004; Marcati et al., 2008; Baron & Tang, 2011).

Guzmán & Santos (2001) stated that entrepreneurs with an extrinsic motivation may be less prone to accepting innovation. Furthermore, the motivations of these efforts lack empirical analysis (Bogers et al., 2017; Santos & Mendonca, 2017).

4. Age. Fry (1993) showed that the majority of people who started a business were between 20-50 years old and 65% 20-40 years old. These ages provide a balance between the needed experience and family responsibilities (Fry, 1993). Susbauer (1972) believed that those younger than 25 years old and older than 60 face experience and energy constraints to operating a business.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

93

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Organization Characteristics 1. Education (Training). Human capital is essential innovation in general, but especially important for service innovation (Pires et al., 2008). Investment in human resources, then, plays an especially important role in service innovations (Miles, 2001).

Human resource development through education is an important component to innovation and, thus, SMEs competitiveness and economic growth (Robinson & Sexton, 1994; Freel, 2005). Individual training contributes to the generation of new ideas within a business (Galende & De la, 2003; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Damanpour, 1991).

The growth of entrepreneurship education during the past decade has been phenomenal and is now a common course in most business schools (Santos, Neumeyer, & Morris, 2019). Training approach can lead to innovation and improved entrepreneurial success (Campos et al., 2017).Walsworth & Verma (2007) show that human resource training is positively associated with both product and process innovation. Universities contribute to the promotion of innovation, human capital training (Audretsch et al., 2016). Beugelsdijk (2008) suggested that human resource training contributes to incremental innovation. Amara et al. (2008) suggested that human resource training and education affect the novelty of innovation.

2. Cooperation. Cooperation and coordination among organizational units have a positive influence on SME innovation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Damanpour, 1991).

Systematic research on new market opportunities and interaction with similar companies enhance SME innovation (Guzman et al., 2009). Collaboration with foreign SMEs is an important factor of product innovation in transition economies (KurtishiKastrati et al., 2016). These relationships can be summarized as follows (Cheung & Lin, 2004; Gërguri-Rashiti et al., 2017; Ramadani et al., 2017): (i) Local SMEs can learn about the designs of the new products and technology, through reverse engineering, and then come up with improved new innovations. (ii) This collaboration can cause spillovers to local SMEs through labor market turnover where skilled workers who once worked for the foreign SMEs move to local SMEs. (iii) The foreign SMEs products can stimulate local SMEs creative thinking and help generate blueprints for new products and processes. Hence, it would be beneficial to effectively increase collaboration for innovation between SMEs, entrepreneurs, research

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

94

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

institutions and the public sector in a way that is easily accessible and beneficial for SMEs (Leckela et al., 2020).

3. Size. Business size is directly associated with innovation because of the capabilities and resources needed to create innovation (Soete, 1979; Vaona & Pianta, 2008; Acs & Audretsch, 1990; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Acs & Audretsch (1990) showed that the effects of SMEs size on innovation can vary significantly among industries. Rogers (2004) emphasized the role of the industry life cycle in that innovation tends to concentrate in larger SMEs as industries evolve towards maturity. The nature of the knowledge environment has emerged as a factor influencing the relationship between SMEs size and innovation (Vaona & Pianta, 2008). In addition, Forés & Camisón (2016) find that the organization size has a positive effect on incremental innovation performance but a negative non-significant effect on radical innovation performance.

External Factors 1. Research and Development (R&D). R&D represents the company's internal efforts to obtain knowledge that will lead to greater innovation (Hull & Covin, 2010; Girma et al., 2008; Li & Kozhikode, 2009; Puranam et al., 2009; Quintana & Benavides, 2008; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Romijn & Albaladejo, 2002; Furman et al., 2002). R&D includes both product and process R&D. In product R&D business owners, improve their products, while in process R&D marginal costs are reduced (Egeraat, 2010; Lin & Saggi, 2002). Absence of an R&D system would lead to lower SMEs competitiveness and performance (Lee et al., 2011). Companies often need external sources such as collaboration with other companies, partnerships with universities, and R&D initiatives to enhance innovation (Kroll & Schiller, 2010). Reviewing studies of innovation, Becheikh et al. (2006) concluded that 80% found a positive and significant effect of R&D expenditures on innovation activities. Battisti & Stoneman (2010), Hashi & Stojcic (2013), and Janz et al. (2004) found that R&D leads to product/process innovation.

However, it can be the case that this statistically insignificant relationship can be attributed to the fact that many SMEs might under-report their R&D measures and their innovation activities (Saridakis et al., 2019).

2. Culture. A supportive organizational culture is essential to achieve innovation (Morris, 2007). National culture affects innovation through, for example, efficiency of R&D, and technology (Jones & Davis, 2000; Steensma et al., 2000; Shane, 1993;

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

95

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Dwyer et al., 2005). All of these are related because culture directly affects SME innovation (Akman & Yilmaz, 2008).

3. Government Support. Improving the relationship between government and SME is a major factor affecting innovation. Government can assist in planning, raise industry awareness about the importance of innovation, and stimulate innovation (Moffat & Auer, 2006). Moreover, government policies, such as lowering tax rates and granting loans, can promote SME innovation (Romijn & Albaladejo, 2002; Souitaris, 2002).

Methodology 1) Sample and data To analyze and evaluate the practical implementation of a grassroots initiative, we apply a case study methodology. During the COVID-19 period in year 2020, most of SMEs were closed. Therefore, we uses questionnaires and interviews for data collection. The interviews by phone calls and the questionnaires were sent by mail to a stratified random sample.

The population of this study includes entrepreneurs working in the SMEs of Ardakan City, Iran. There are approximately 225 SMEs in Arakan. In this survey we interviewed with 108 entrepreneurs which only 101 answered (answer rate=93.5%). In addition, 92 questionnaires were distributed of which only 84 were usable (return rate= 91.3%). In generally, we obtained data from 185 entrepreneurs of SMEs during the COVID-19 period in year 2020.

2) Measurements We collected information on sample characteristics (includes; Number of Staff, Experience, Education and age) and measures of the main variables that were a combination of questions about internal and external factors of the organization. Table 1 gives the description of the variables entrepreneurs.

Questions, which allow us to specify the variables of our interest by following the theory. A total of 34 questions measured these internal and external characteristics using a 5 point Likert scale (1= Very low, 2= Low, 3= Average, 4= Much and 5= Very much). The questionnaire was pre-tested and revised based on comments.

3) Reliability and Validity Analysis In this study, standard questionnaires are used to assess the validity of questionnaire we use. In addition, after its localization, its initial questionnaire was drawn and by the JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

96

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

time of codification, the researcher distributed questionnaires among experts, scholars and some of entrepreneurs, then after collecting opinions of the group, corrective enterprises in the initial questionnaires get under way. Then, in the next stage, the researcher distributed 30 questionnaires among entrepreneurs. Finally, considering entrepreneurs' opinions and experts' and advisors' final considerations, final questionnaire was codified.

In this study, reliability or trust ability of the questionnaire is assessed by measurement method of Cronbach's α by using SPSS22 software. In order to assess the reliability level, an examination with a sample of 185 entrepreneurs was taken in Ardakan. The results of the pre-test indicated the reliability of the measurement tool with Cornbrash’s alpha 92.1%. To summarize, the measurement indicators of the questionnaire in this study have good reliability and validity.

Data analysis Path analysis is a generalized form of multiple regression method in the formulation of causal models. In addition to direct effects, indirect effects of each of independent variables on the dependent variables are identified. The default linear regression used in the path analysis shows that the distribution of dependent variables is normal or near normal.

In order to verify the normality of data, a Kolmogorov - Smirnov single sample was used. This test compares the observed cumulative distribution function and the normal theoretical cumulative distribution function. Test results of Kolmogorov - Smirnov showed that for most variables trait distribution in the sample with its distribution is not normal and there is a significant difference between observed and expected frequencies. Because of the abnormal data distribution, natural logarithm was used for the regression analysis. In conducting the path analysis, innovation was a dependent variable, individual and organizational characteristics and external factors were independent variables, and product and process innovation were mediator variables.

Stepwise regression was used in the path analysis. All factors were used in the regression. One of the most important assumptions in testing causal relationships is the lack of co-linear relationships between variables. High co-linearity signifies a low validity despite a high coefficient of determination. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was used to test for co-linearity, which is the reverse of tolerance statistics or the proportion of variance which is not explained by other independent variables. The rate of coJOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

97

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

linearity increases the lower the tolerance and the higher the VIF index. This leads to the increase of variance of regression coefficients and causes adverse regression models for prediction. The maximum VIF in the regression models used in all path analysis procedures is 1.130, which is an acceptable number and indicates high model validity. The empirical model and results are shown in Figure 2.

The impact of direct, indirect and total effects was calculated to determine which variables have a strong impact on innovation. Findings shown in Table 4 indicate that no External environment or individual characteristics are directly associated with innovation. Product innovation had a higher effect on innovation than process innovation. However, product innovation had the highest effect on innovation. SMEs size and age were negatively associated with innovation. Innovation declined as the SMEs size and age increased and increased as SMEs size and age declined.

Results and Discussion Demographic data shown in Table 1 indicate that about 34.05% of respondents had been working at the company between 1 - 3 years and about 49.73% did not have a diploma. These results reflect a low educational level and thus would be expected to have a negative impact on innovation. About 45.41% of respondents’ age ranged between 30-40 years old, which prevented formation of business units due to reasons such as military service and/or education. These indicate direct control over the business by the members, which is consistent with Bullet & Seigyoung (2010), Xu & Lin (2008) and Chandler et al. (2000).

Correlations shown in Table 2 were used to examine the relationships between variables. The dominant structural features associated with the external and internal environment of organization have a significant correlation with characteristics of individuals. Table values show that the average of organizational size, age and education level is less than 2, which indicates low age, size of organization, and education level. In addition, experience and motivation revealed the highest correlation with innovation. Table values show that size and culture were significantly and positively related to process innovation (r=0.417, P<.01), but not significantly related to product innovation (P-value>.05). For the two contextual variables, age and government were significantly and positively related to innovation in product (r=0.167, P<.05; r=0.165, P<.05; respectively). Therefore the two contextual variables, education(r=.206) and government(r=0.254) were significantly and related to JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

98

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

innovation in process at the 0.01 level. During the COVID-19 government has a negative effect to product innovation. Actually, government forced SMEs to create new product according the COVID-19 situation.

Table 3 shown the results and presents the procedure of path analysis and effect on all variables using 8 stages. In stage 1, process innovation is more important than product innovation. In stages 2 and 3, organizational size and age are significantly and negatively

associated

Government(r=0.426)

and

with

process

innovation

exigence(r=0.191)

are

(r=-0.271,

significantly

and

r=-0.216). positively

associated with process innovation. Also experience(r=0.438), motivation(r=0.199) and degree(r=0157) are significantly and positively associated with product innovation.

Additional government is significant at the 0.01 level and negatively associated with product innovation (r=-0.144). In other stages, the findings show that other variables are also associated with innovation.

The impact of direct, indirect and total effects was calculated to determine which variables are associated with innovation. Findings shown in Table 4 indicate that no external environment or entrepreneur characteristics are directly associated with innovation. Product innovation had a higher effect on innovation than process innovation. However, product innovation had the highest effect on innovation.

SMEs size was negatively associated with innovation. Innovation declined as the SMEs size increased. Specifically, the variables can have direct and indirect effects on product innovation (0.804), but do not have indirect effects on process innovation (0.625). The SMEs variable does not have a direct effect on innovation but does have an indirect effect on innovation. Moreover, age has a negative effect on innovation (0.136).

These findings show that experience is the most important factor influencing innovation. In addition, education and degree are also significantly associated with innovation. SMEs size was found be indirectly associated with innovation. As employment increased, the rate of innovation declined. These findings are consistent with Isidro & Martinez-Roman (2011). Size is also indirectly associated with innovation, which is consistent with the findings of Soete (1979).

Additional findings show that the cooperation and assistance of units is associated with product improvement and SMEs new products in this time. Sher & Yang (2005) found that the cooperation of units and their integration has a positive effect on innovation.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

99

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

These results suggest that R&D allow SMEs to develop products that had better meet consumer needs. This is consistent with Bertrand (2009) who found that innovation depended heavily on R&D. Another factor that affects innovations is government support. Government policies help managers to acquire or develop new technologies that can ultimately improve SMEs performance (Madrid, Garcia & Van Auken, 2009).

This finding is consistent with Kyung & Park (2012) who showed that a positive relationship exists between state aid and innovation. Through the reduction in SMEs constraints, such as financial and human resources, and by providing the needed infrastructure, government policy can have significant impact on SME performance and improvement in innovation especially in product.

Conclusions This research project examined product and process innovation among 185 entrepreneurs of SMEs during the COVID-19 in Ardakan, Iran. In addition, is one of only a few papers to examine innovation in COVID-19 period. The results of this study indicated that experience was directly associated with innovation while organization size was negatively associated with innovation. Employee training to facilitate cooperation as well as higher commitment to R&D can lead to greater innovation.

The results should be useful for entrepreneurs, government, stockholders, and owners of SMEs and providers of services to SMEs to better understand which factors affect adaptation of innovation. Understanding factors that affect innovation can provide a perspective on how SMEs can continue to embrace innovation as a core value and remain competitive in the increasingly competitive world markets especially pandemic disease such as COVID-19 crisis. Financial statements provide important information that should be used, both by external evaluators and internally, to help guide decisions.

Entrepreneurs, owners and providers of services can use the information to understand which factors affect their use of financial statements. Such an understanding of what factors have this influence may improve the process by which financial statements get incorporated into decisions.

The several limitations of this study also provide avenues for further research. The study could be expanded to investigate the relationship between innovation and performance across multiple markets and regions of the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the data was collected at a single point in the coronavirus crisis. A

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

100

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

longitudinal study could provide further evidence the relationship between innovation and multiple SMEs characteristics over the business cycle.

References Acemoglu, D., & Pishke, J. (1999). Beyond Becker: Training in Imperfect Labor Markets. Economice Journal, 109, 12-143.

Acs, Z., & Audretsch, D. (1990). Innovation and Small Firms. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).

Akman, G., & Yilmaz, C. (2008). Innovative Capability, Innovation Strategy and Market Orientation: An Empirical Analysis in Turkish Software Industry. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12 (1), 69–111.

Amara, N., Landry, R., Becheikh, N., & Ouimet, M. (2008). Learning and Novelty of Innovation in Established Manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 28, 450–463.

An Ho, L. (2011). Meditation Learning, Organizational Innovation and Performance.

Industrial Management and Data Systems, 111(1), 113-131.

Ansell, C., Boin, A. (2019). Taming deep uncertainty: The potential of pragmatist principles

for

understanding

and

improving

strategic

crisis

management.

Administration & Society, 51 (7), 1079-1112.

Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1994). The Changing Technology of Technological Change: General and Abstract Knowledge and the Division of Innovative Labor.

Research Policy, 23(5), 523–532.

Audretsch, D.B., Lehmann, E.E., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial finance and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 1-9.

Baldwin, J., & Lin, Z. (2002). Impediments to Advanced Technology Adoption for Canadian Manufacturers. Research Policy, 31, 1-18.

Baraati Marnani, A., Turani, S., & Zahiri, M. (2007). Organizational Design for an Entrepreneurship Center. Monthly Social Economics, 92, 5-25.

Baron, R., & Tang, J. (2011). The Role of Entrepreneurs in Firm-Level Innovation: Joint Effects of Positive Affect Creativity and Environmental Dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 49–60.

Battisti, G., & Stoneman, P. (2010). How innovative are UK firms? Evidence from the Fourth UK Community Innovation Survey on synergies between technological and organizational innovations. British Journal of Management, 21, 187–206.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

101

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Baum, T., & Hai, N.T.T. (2020). Hospitality, tourism, human rights and the impact of COVID-19. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(7), 2397-2407.

Becheikh, N., Landry, R., & Amara, N. (2006). Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: a systematic review of the literature from 1993– 2003. Technovation, 26, 644–664.

Bertrand, O. (2009). Effects of Foreign Acquisitions on R and D Activity: Evidence from Firm-Level Data for France. Research Policy, 38(6), 1021–1031.

Beugelsdijk, S. (2008). Strategic Human Resource Practices and Product Innovation.

Organization Studies, 29(06), 821-847.

Block, J., & Sandner, P. (2009). Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurs and Their Duration in Self-Employment: Evidence from German Micro Data. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 9 (2), 117–137.

Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Bru6nswicker, S., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., Hagedoorn, J., Hilgers, D,.

Laursen, K., Magnusson, M.G., Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I.P., Moeslein, K.M,.

Nambisan, S., Piller, F.T., Radziwon, A., Rossi-Lamastra, C., Sims, J., & Ter Wal, A.L.J. (2017) .The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24 (1), 8–40.

Boly, V., Morel, L., & Renaud, J. (2003). Towards a Constructivist Approach to Technological Innovation Management: An Overview of the Phenomena in French SME’s. In International Handbook on Innovation, 790-803.

Brammer, S., & Clark, T. (2020). COVID-19 and management education: Reflections on challenges, opportunities, and potential futures. British Journal of Management, 31 (1), 453-456.

Broukhas, R., & Nord, W. (1979). An Exploration of Factors the Entrepreneurial Decision: Personal Characteristics vs Environmental Condition. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 364-369.

Brown, R., & Rocha, A. (2020). Entrepreneurial uncertainty during the COVID-19 crisis: Mapping the temporal dynamics of entrepreneurial finance. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, (In press).

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

102

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Bulent, M., & Seigyoung, A. (2010). Development and Return on Execution of Product Innovation Capabilities: The Role of Organizational Structure. Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (5), 820–831.

Campos, F., Frese, M., Goldstein, M., Iacovone, L., Johnson, H. C., McKenzie, D., & Mensmann, M. (2017). Teaching personal initiative beats traditional training in boosting small business in West Africa. Science, 357(6357), 1287-1290.

Castaño, M. S., Méndez, M. T., & Galindo, M. A. (2016).

Innovation,

internationalization and business-growth expectations among entrepreneurs in the service sector. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1690–1695.

Cefin, E., & Marsili, O. (2006). Survivor: The Role of Innovation in Firm’s Survival.

Research Policy, 35, 626-641.

Chandler, G., Keller, C., & Lyon, D. (2000). Unraveling the Determinants and Consequences of an Innovation Supportive Organizational Culture. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(1), 59–77.

Chetty, S. K., & Stangl, L. M. (2010). Internationalization and innovation in a network relationship context. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1725–1743.

Cheung, K. Y., & Lin, P. (2004). Spillover effects of FDI on innovation in China: evidence from the provincial data. China Economic, 15 (1), 25–44.

Chiva, R., Ghauri, P., & Alegre, J. (2014). Organizational learning, innovation and internationalization: A complex system model. British Academy of Management, 25, 687–705.

Clark, C., Davila, A., Regis, M., & Kraus, S. (2020). Predictors of COVID-19 voluntary compliance behaviors: an international investigation. Global Transitions, 76-82, Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: a Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.

De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Pizzurno, E., & Cassia, L. (2015). Product innovation in family versus nonfamily firms: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 1–36.

Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation.

Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.

Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained Product Innovation in Large, Mature \ Organizations: Overcoming Innovation-to-Organization Problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1120–1153.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

103

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Drucker, P. (2014). Innovation and entrepreneurship. London and New York: Routledge.

Dwyer, S., Mesak, H., & Hsu, M., (2005). An exploratory examination of the influence of national culture on cross-national product diffusion. Journal of International Marketing, 13(2), 1–27.

Ebersberger, B., & Kuckertz, A. (2021). Hop to it! The impact of organization type on innovation response time to the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Business Research, 124, 126-135.

Edwards, R.W., Kumar, P., & Ranjan, R. (2002). Understanding Organization Culture and Innovation: A Case Study Approach. Corpus ID: 18799737.

Edwards, W. R., Kum, P., & Ranjan, R. (2002). Understanding organization culture and innovation: a case study approach.

Egeraat V. C. (2010). The scale and scope of process R&D in the Irish pharmaceutical industry. Irish Geography, 43 (1), 35-58.

Espallarado M. (2008). Fostering innovation the role of market orientation and organizational learning. European journal of innovation management, 11(3), 389-412.

Fernades, C., Ferreira, J., & Raposo, M., (2013). Drivers to firm innovation and their effects on performance: an international comparison. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9 (4), 557–580.

Feyzbakhsh,

B.

A.,

&

Dehghanpour,

F.

(2005).

Polyhedron

model

on

Entrepreneurship, Tehran International Conference on 3P Management.

Fischer, M., & Varga, A. (2002). Technological innovation and inter firm cooperation: An exploratory analysis using survey data from manufacturing firms in the metropolitan region of Vienna. International Journal of Technology Management, 24(7–8), 724–742.

Fores, B., & Camison, C. (2016). Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size?. Journal of Business Research, 69, 831–848.

Freel, M. (2000). Barriers to Product Innovation in Small Manufacturing Firms.

International Small Business Journal, 18 (2), 60-79.

Freel, M. (2005). Patterns of innovation and skills in small firms. Technovation, 5(2), 123–134.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

104

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Frishammar, J., & Horte, S. (2005). Managing External Information in Manufacturing Firms: The Impact on Innovation Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 251-266.

Fry, R. (1993). Entrepreneurship: A Planning Approach, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice – Hall.

Furman, J., Porter, M., & Stern, S. (2002). The Determinants of National Innovative Capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899–93.

Galende, J., & De la, F. (2003). Internal Factors Determining a Firm’s Innovative Behavior. Research Policy, 32 (5), 715–736.

Galia, F., & Legros, D. (2004). Complementarities Between Obstacles to Innovation: Evidence From France. Research Policy, 33, 1185-1199.

George, J. (2007). Creativity in Organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439– 477.

Gërguri-Rashiti, S., Ramadani, V., Abazi-Alili, H., Dana, L. P., & Ratten, V. (2017). ICT, innovation and firm performance: the transition economies context. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(1), 93-102.

Girma, S., Görg, H., & Hanley, A. (2008). R&D and Exporting: A Comparison of British and Irish Firms. Review of World Economics, 144(4), 750-773.

Guidice, R., Heames, S., & Wang, S. (2009). The Indirect Relationship Between Organization Level Knowledge Worker Turnover and Innovation. The Learning Organization, 16(2), 143-167.

Gulati, R., N. Nohria and A. Zaheer, (2000). Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203–215.

Guzmán, J., & Santos, J. (2001). The Booster Function and the Entrepreneurial Quality: An Application to the Province of Seville. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 13(3), 211–228.

Guzman-Cuevas, J., Caceres-Carrasco, R., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2009). Functional Dependence and Productive Dependence of SMEs. Small Business Economics, 32(3), 317–330.

Hadjimanolis, A. (1999). Barriers to Innovation for SME in a Small Less Developed Country (Cyprus). Technovation, 19, 561-570.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

105

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Hashi, I., & Stojcic, N. (2013). The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: evidence from the community innovation survey 4.

Research Policy, 42(2), 353–366.

Hausman, A. (2005). Innovativeness Among Small Businesses: Theory and Propositions for Future Research. Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 773-782.

Heunks, F. (1998). Innovation. Creativity and Success. Small Business Economics, 10, 263- 272.

Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2006). Resource and Capability Constraints to Innovation in Small and Large Plants. Small Business Economics, 26, 257-277.

Higón, D. A., & Driffield, N. (2010). Exporting and innovation performance: Analysis of the annual small business survey in the UK. International Small Business Journal, 29(1), 4–24.

Hisrich, R.D., & Ramadani, V. (2017). Effective Entrepreneurial Management. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Hornaday, J., & Tiken, M. (1979). Capturing Twenty–One Heffalumps, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson University Press.

Hull, C., & Covin, J. (2010). Learning Capability, Technological Parity, and Innovation Mode Use. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (1), 97–114.

Humphreys, P., McAdam, R., & Leckey, J. (2005). Longitudinal Evaluation of Innovation Implementation in SMEs. European of Innovation Management, 8(3), 283304.

Isidro, R., & Martinez-Roman, J. (2011). Self-Employment and Innovation: Exploring the Determinants of Innovative Behavior in Small Businesses. Research Policy, 41(1), 176-189.

Janz, N., Lööf, H., & Peters, B. (2004). Firm-level innovation and productivity – is there a common story across countries. Discussion Paper, 2 (1), 184–204.

Jennings, D. (1994). Multiple Perspectives of Entrepreneurship Test, Reading, and Cases, Cincinnati, Ohio: South – Western Publishing Co. Jimens, J., Sanz-Valle, R., & Hernandez-Espillardo, M. (2008). Fostering Innovation the Role of Market orientation and Organizational Learning. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(3), 389-412.

Jones, G., & Davis, H. (2000). National Culture and Innovation: Implications for Locating Global RandD Operations. Management International Review, 40(1), 11–39.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

106

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Katila, R., & Shane, S. (2005). When Does Lack of Resources Make New Firms Innovative?. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5), 814-829.

Khalil, T. (2000). Management of Technology: The Key to Competitiveness and Wealth Creation. McGraw-Hill.

Khan, A., & Manopichetwattana, V. (1989). Models for Innovative and Non-Innovative.

Small Firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 187-196.

Kirk, C.P., & Rifkin, S. (2020). I will trade you diamonds for toilet paper: Consumer reacting, coping and adapting behaviors in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Research, (In press).

Koellinger, P. (2008). Why are Some Entrepreneurs More Innovative Than Others.

Small Business Economics, 31(1), 21–37.

Kroll, H., & Schiller, D. (2010). Establishing an Interface Between Public Sector Applied Research and the Chinese Enterprise Sector: Preparing for 2020. Technovation, 30(2), 117-129.

Kurtishi-Kastrati, S., Ramadani, V., Dana, L.-P., & Ratten, V. (2016). Do foreign direct investments accelerate economic growth? The case of the Republic of Macedonia.

International Journal of Competitiveness, 1(1), 71–98.

Kyung-Nam, K., & Park, H. (2012). Influence of Government R and D Support and Inter-Firm Collaborations on Innovation in Korean Biotechnology SMEs, Technovation, 32, 68-78.

Lazzarotti, V., & Manzini, R. (2009). Different modes of open innovation: a theoretical framework and an empirical study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 615-636.

Lecerf, M. A. (2012). Internationalization and innovation: The effects of a strategy mix on the economic performance of French SMEs. International Business Research, 5(6), 2–13.

Leckel, A., Veilleux, S., & Dana, L. P. (2020). Local Open Innovation: A means for public policy to increase collaboration for innovation in SMEs. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 153, -20.

Lee, Y., Sooyoung, K., & Lee, H. (2011). The Impact of Service R and D on the Performance of Korean Information Communication Technology Small and Medium Enterprises, Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 28, 77-79.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

107

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Li, J., & Kozhikode, R., (2009). Developing New Innovation Models: Shifts in the Innovation Landscapes in Emerging Economies and Implications for Global R and D Management. Journal of International Management, 15(3), 328-339.

Lin, P., & Saggi, K. (2002). Product differentiation, process R and D, and the nature of market competition. European Economic Revie, 46, 201-211.

Madrid, A., Garcia, D., & Van Auken, H. (2009). Barriers to Innovation Among Spanish.

Manufacturing SMEs, Journal of Small Business Management, 47(4), 465-488.

Madrid, A., García, D., & and Van Auken, H. (2013). An Investigation of Spanish SME Innovation During Different Economic Conditions, Journal of Small Business Management, 51(4), 578–601.

Mahoney, J. (2005). Resource-based Theory, Dynamic Capabilities, and Real Options, Economic Foundations of Strategy. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 167–217.

Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1995). Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 47–65.

Marcati, A., Guido, G., & Peluso, A. (2008). The Role of SME Entrepreneurs’ Innovativeness and Personality in the Adoption of Innovations. Research Policy, 37(9), 1579-1590.

Marshall, A., & Wolanskyj-Spinner, A. (2020). COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities for educators and generation Z learners. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 95 (6), 1135-1137.

Martinez-Roman, J., Gamero, J., & Tamayo, A. (2011). Analysis of innovation in SMEs Using an Innovative Capability-Based Non-Linear Model: a Study in the Province of Seville (Spain). Technovation, 10, 10-16.

McAdam, R., & McConvery, T. (2004). Barriers to Innovation Within Small Firms in a Peripheral Location, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 10(3), 206-221.

Miles, I. (2001). Services Innovation: A Reconfiguration of Innovation Studies. PREST Discussion Paper 01-05, University of Manchester, Manchester (UK). Available at:/http://research.mbs.ac.uk/innovation/Ourstaff.aspxS. Moffat, A., & Auer, A. (2006) .Corporate Environmental Innovation (CEI): A Government Initiative to Support Corporate Sustainability Leadership. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 589-600.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

108

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Mohen, P., & Roller, L. (2005). Complementarities in Innovation Policy. European Economic Review, 49, 1431-1450.

Morris, L. (2007). Creating the Innovation Culture: Geniuses, Champions, and Leaders: An Innovation Labs White Paper, 17.

Nassimbeni, G. (2001). Technology, Innovation Capacity, and the Export Attitude of Small Manufacturing Firms: Alogit/Tobit Model. Research Policy, 30(2), 245-262.

Nijkamp. P., & Poot, J. (1997). Endogenous Technological Change: Long-Run Growth and Spatial Interdependence: A Survey. Innovative Behaviour in Space and Time, 213238.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-34.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.

OECD, 2002. Frascati Manual. OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD, (2005). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Oslo Manual - OECD (Final Draft of the 3rd Edition). Oslo, Norway.

Onetti, A., Zucchella, A., Jones, M., & McDougall, P. (2010). Guest editor's introduction to the special issue: Entrepreneurship and strategic management in new technology based companies. Journal of Management and Governance, 16(3), 333–336.

O'Regan, N., Ghobadian, A., & Galler, D. (2006). In Research of the Drivers of High Growth in Manufacturing SMEs, Technovation, 26(1), 30-41.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological data. Oslo manual. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Parnell, D., Widdop, P., Bond, A., & Wilson, R. (2020). COVID-19, networks and sport.

Managing Sport and Leisure, (In press).

Pedeliento, G., Bettinellim, C., Andreini, D., & Bergamaschi, M. (2018). Consumer entrepreneurship and cultural innovation: The case of GinO12. Journal of Business Research, 92, 431–442.

Pires, C., Sarkar, D., & Carvalho, L. (2008). Innovation in Services – How Different From Manufacturing?. Service Industries Journal, 28(10), 1339-1356.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

109

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and Innovation: A Systematic Review of Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(3/4), 137-168.

Pratali, P. (2003). Strategic management of technological innovations in the small to medium enterprise. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 18–31.

Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Chaudhuri S. (2009). Integrating Acquired Capabilities: When Structural Integration is (UN) Necessary. Organization Science, 20(2), 313-328.

Quintana, C., & Benavides, C. (2008). Innovative Competence, Exploration and Exploitation: The Influence of Technological Diversification. Research Policy, 37(3), 492-507.

Ramadani, V., Abazi-Alili, H., Dana, L. P., Rexhepi, G., & Ibraimi, S. (2017). The impact of knowledge spillovers and innovation on firm-performance: findings from the Balkans countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(1), 299-325.

Ramadani, V., Hisrich, R. D., Abazi-Alili, H,. Dana, L,. Laxman, P., & Abazi-Bexheti, L. (2019). Product innovation and firm performance in transition economies: A multi-stage estimation approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 271-280.

Ratten, V. (2015). International consumer attitudes toward cloud computing: a social cognitive theory and technology acceptance model perspective. Thunderbird International Business Review, 57(3), 217–228.

Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (2020). Covid-19 and entrepreneurship education: Implications for advancing research and practice, The International Journal of Management Education. ISSN 1472-8117.

Rauch, A. J., & Hulsink, W. (2015). Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies. An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 14 (2), 187-204.

Ripoll, F., Boronat-Moll, C., & Rojas, R. (2015). Technological innovation without R&D: unfolding the extra gains of management innovation son technological performance.

Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag, 27 (1), 19–38.

Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. (2003). Network Competence: It is Impact on Innovation Success and its Antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 56(9), 745-755.

Robinson, P., & Sexton, E. (1994). The Effect of Education and Experience on SelfEmployment Success. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(2), 141-156.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

110

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Rogers, M. (2004). Networks, Firm Size and Innovation. Small Business Economics, 22, 141-153.

Romijn, H., & Albaladejo, M. (2002). Determinants of Innovation Capability in Small Electronics and Software Firms in Southeast England. Research Policy, 31(7), 10531067.

Roson-Buch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is Innovation Always Beneficial? A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Innovation and Performance in SMEs, Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 441-457.

Roura, J. (2009). Towards new European peripheries? In: Karlson,C., Joahansson,B., Stough,R.(Eds.),Innovation,

Agglomeration

and

Regional

Competition:

New

Horizonsin Regional Science. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Rowley, J., Baragheh, A. & Sambrook, S. (2011). Towards an Innovation Type Mapping Tool. Management Decision, 49(1), 73-86.

Santos, A.B., & Mendonça, S. (2017). Open Innovation Adoption in Clusters: The Portuguese case. The Quadruple Innovation Helix Nexus. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 245–264.

Santos, S.C., Neumeyer, X., & Morris, M.H. (2019). Entrepreneurship education in a poverty context: An empowerment perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 57 (sup1), 6-32.

Saridakis, G., Idris, B., Hansen, J. M., & Dana, L. P. (2019). SMEs' internationalization: When does innovation matter?. Journal of Business Research, 96, 250–263.

Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., Schiuma, G., & Passiante, G. (2017). Activating entrepreneurial learning processes for transforming university students’ idea into entrepreneurial practice. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 23(3), 465-485.

Secundo, G., Mele, G., Sansone, G., & Paolucci, E. (2020). Entrepreneurship Education Centres in universities: evidence and insights from Italian “Contamination Lab” cases. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(6), 1311-1333.

Shalley, C., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. (2004). The Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go From Here? Journal of Management, 30, 933-958.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

111

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Shane, S. (1993). Cultural Influences on National Rates of Innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 59-73.

Shanteau, J., & Rohrbaugh, C. (2000). Social/Psychological Barriers to Successful Management of Technological Innovation, in B. Green (Ed) Risk Behaviour and Risk Management in Business Life, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press, 151-159.

Sher, P., & Yang, P. (2005). The Effects of Innovative Capabilities, R and D Clustering on Firm Performance: The Evidence of Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry, Technovation, 25(1), 33-43.

Soete, L. (1979). Firm Size and Incentive Activity: The Evidence Reconsidered.

European Economic Review, 12(4), 319-340.

Souitaris, V. (2002). Technological Trajectories as Moderators of Firm-Level Determinants of Innovation. Research Policy, 31, 877–898.

Steensma, H., Marino, L., Weaver, K., & Dickson, P. (2000). The Influence of National Culture on the Formation of Technology Alliances by Entrepreneurial Firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 951–973.

Stock, G., Greis, N., & Fischer, W. (2002). Firm Size and Dynamic Technological Innovation. Technovation, 22(9), 537–549.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. (2005). The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463.

Susbauer, J. C. (1972). The technical entrepreneurship process in Austin, Texas, in Cooper, A. , and Komives, J. (eds.), Technical Entrepreneurship: A symposium.

Milwaukee,

WI:

The

Center

for

Venture

Management,

28–46.

Technical

Entrepreneurship,: A Symposium.

Szerb, L., & Ulbert, J. (2009). The examination of the competitiveness in the Hungarian SME sector: a firm level analysis. Acta Polytech. Hung, 6 (3), 105–123.

Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Changes. John Wiley.

Tourigny, D., & Le, C. (2004). Impediments to Innovation Faced by Canadian Firms.

Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 13(3), 217-250.

Van Auken, H., Madrid, A., & Gracia, D. (2008). Innovation and SME Performance in Spanish Manufacturing Firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 8(1), 36-56.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

112

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Vaona, A., & Pianta, M. (2008). Firm Size and Innovation in European Manufacturing.

Small Business Economics, 30(3), 283-299.

Walsworth, S., & A. Verma. (2007). Globalization, Human Resources Practices, and Innovation: Recent Evidence from the Canadian Workplace and Employee Survey.

Industrial Relations 46(2), 222-240.

Wen-Hsien, T., & Hsiao-Chiao, K. (2011). Entrepreneurship Policy Evaluation and Decision Analysis for SMEs. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 8343-8351.

Wilkinson, J.T., & Thomas, R.A. (2014). Innovation's second step. Thunderbird International Business Review, 56 (3), 273–284.

Wolff, J. A., & Pett, T. L. (2000). Internationalization of small firms: An examination of export competitive patterns, firm size, and export performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(2), 34–47.

Wong, C., & Ladkin, A. (2008). Exploring the Relationship Between Employee Creativity and Job Related Motivators in the Hong Kong Hotel Industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 426-437.

Wong, C., & Pang, W. (2003). Motivators to Creativity in the Hotel Industry: Perspectives of Managers and Supervisors. Tourism Management, 24, 551-559.

World Health Organization. (2020). Who, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak (2020). http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019 Xu, Z., Lin, J. & Lin, D. (2008). Networking and Innovation in SMEs: Evidence from Guangdong Province, China. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(4), 788–801.

Zollo, M., & Winter, S.G. (2002). Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

113

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Table 1.

Respondent Characteristics Variables Frequency Percent (%) <10

86

46.49

10-19

53

28.65

20-29

27

14.59

>29

19

10.27

<1

45

24.32

1-3

63

34.05

3-6

38

20.54

6-10

24

12.97

>10

15

8.11

< Diploma

92

49.73

Bachelor

65

35.14

<Graduate

38

20.54

<30

59

31.89

30-40

84

45.41

>40

42

22.70

Experience (years)

Degree (Education level)

Age

N = 185

Number of Staff

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

114

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Age

Process

Product

Innovation

Government

R&D

Culture

Motivation

Cooperation

Education

Size

Experience

Degree

Age

Table 2.

Correlation Between Variables

1

Degree

-0.210**

1

Experience

0.324**

-0.161*

1

Size

-0.090

0.161*

-0.076

Education

-0.437**

Cooperatio n

0.205**

0.136

0.000

Motivation

-0.154*

-0.107

0.041 -0.206** 0.296**

Culture

-0.027

-0.120

-0.016 -0.263** 0.225** 0.271**

0.559**

R&D

-0.143

-0.050

-0.087

0.484** 0.414**

Governmen t

0.066

-0.082

-0.068 0.346** 0.273** 0.375**

Innovation

0.071

-0.017 0.417** -0.145*

0.088

Product

0.167*

0.077

Process

-0.050

-0.103 0.245**

Mean

1.86

Std. Deviation

0.968

0.238** -0.139

1 0.141

1

-0.027

0.171*

0.097

1 0.055

0.445** 0.367**

1

1

0.079

0.287**

1

0.053

0.252** 0.170*

0.148*

0.057

0.066

0.015

0.184*

0.096

0.165* 0.804**

-.146*

0.206**

0.099

0.223** 0.172*

0.431** -0.088

0.108

1

0.102

1 1

0.143 -0.254** 0.814** 0.309**

1

1.79

3.64

1.81

3.73

3.42

3.46

4.16

3.26

2.43

3.8054

3.87

3.74

1.001

0.786

0.962

0.816

0.828

0.654

0.567

0.711

0.927

0.689

0.842

0.861

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

115

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Table 3.

Total Procedure of Path Analysis

Stage

1

2

Independent Variable(s)

Dependent Variable

R2

Adjusted R2

F

Sig

Innovation

0.662

0.660

358.67 0

0.000

Process Product

0.000

Product Government Size Experience Age

0.381 0.365 0.244 0.214

Process

0.301

0.281

15.395

Beta

Sig

VIF

0.625 0.611

0.000 0.000

1.105 1.105

0.309 0.426 -0.271 0.191 -0.216

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.001

1.259 1.180 1.153 1.336 1.143

2-1

Governmen t

0.348

0.333

24.008

0.000

Cooperation Size degree Education

2-1-1

Cooperatio n

0.300

0.281

15.394

0.000

Age Degree Culture

0.284 0.223 0.256 0.438 0.199 0.157 -0.144

3

Product

0.261

0.245

15.900

0.000

Experience Motivation Degree Government

3-1

Experience

0.105

0.100

21.530

0.000

Age

0.324

0.000

Culture R&D Cooperation Size

0.411 0.404 0.208 -0.143

0.000

Education Culture Cooperation Degree Size

0.353 0.288 0.255 0.159 0.155

3-2

3-2-1

Motivation

R&D

0.443

0.393

0.431

0.376

35.826

23.172

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.018 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.013

1.045 1.043 1.092 1.097 1.095 1.072 1.532 1.035 1.023 1.045 1.024 1.000 1.381 1.393 1.180 1.137 1.184 1.274 1.120 1.129 1.133

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

116

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Table 4.

Type and Intensity Impact of Each Variable on Innovation Effects Variables

Direction effect

Indirection effect

Total

Product Innovation

0.611

0.193

0.804

Process Innovation

0.625

-

0.625

Experience

-

0.471

0.471

Degree

-

0.172

0.172

Motivation

-

0.159

0.159

Government

-

0.150

0.150

Size

-

-0.136

-0.136

Culture

-

0.111

0.111

Cooperation

-

0.106

0.106

R&D

-

0.064

0.064

Age

-

0.062

0.062

Education

-

0.044

0.044

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

117

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Figure 1.

Research Framework

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

118

ARTIGO ORIGINAL: Auken H., Ardakani M., Carraher S., Avorgani R. (2021) Signaling of patients with drug allergies, Journal of Aging & Innovation, 10 (2): 86- 119

Figure 2.

Research Framework Results

JOURNAL OF AGING AND INNOVATION, AGOSTO, 2021, 10 (1)  ISSN: 2182-696X  http://journalofagingandinnovation.org/ DOI: 10.36957/jai.2182-696X.v10i2-7

119