1 s2.0 S2199853122010381 Main
1 s2.0 S2199853122010381 Main
1 s2.0 S2199853122010381 Main
Article
Does Engaging in Global Market Orientation Strategy Affect
HEIs’ Performance? The Mediating Roles of Intellectual Capital
Readiness and Open Innovation
Bambang Tjahjadi 1, * , Noorlailie Soewarno 1 , Johnny Jermias 2 , Hariyati Hariyati 3 , Atika Fairuzi 1
and Dewi Nabilah Anwar 1
1 Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya City 60285, Indonesia;
[email protected] (N.S.); [email protected] (A.F.);
[email protected] (D.N.A.)
2 Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada; [email protected]
3 Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA), Surabaya City 60213, Indonesia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +62-816-527-484
Abstract: This study aims to examine the effect of global market orientation strategy on the per-
formance of Indonesian Higher Education Institutions. Furthermore, it investigates whether this
relationship is mediated by intellectual capital readiness and open innovation. This is a quantitative
study employing a multi-mediation research model conceptualizing the relationship among the five
constructs. This study employs a resource-based view to explain the relationships among constructs
and partial least squares-structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses studied. A sample
of 119 schools/faculties, derived from the 50 best state and private institutions in Indonesia and
based on the Webometrics 2021, was used. This research reveals the following main results. First,
Citation: Tjahjadi, B.; Soewarno, N.; intellectual capital readiness fully mediates the influence of global market orientation strategy on the
Jermias, J.; Hariyati, H.; Fairuzi, A.; institutions’ performances. Second, open innovation does not mediate the effect of global market
Anwar, D.N. Does Engaging in orientation strategy on institutions’ performances. This study is the first attempt to understand
Global Market Orientation Strategy how global market orientation strategy enhances institutions’ performances via intellectual capital
Affect HEIs’ Performance? The readiness and open innovation. This study reveals the insignificant effect of open innovation on
Mediating Roles of Intellectual performance. Thus, the main implication of these findings is that institutions need to downstream
Capital Readiness and Open their innovations to the community for future performance and communities’ benefits. The applied
Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol.
execution does matter in the open innovation–institution performance relationship.
Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 29. https://
doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010029
Keywords: global market orientation strategy; intellectual capital readiness; open innovation; higher
Received: 1 December 2021 education institutions’ performance; education
Accepted: 17 January 2022
Published: 21 January 2022
support the competitive advantage of HEIs must meet the criteria of being valuable, rare,
inimitable, and non-substitutable. Furthermore, the advantages of these internal resources
can be further developed into new resources that are useful as a strategy for maintaining
market position [20,21]. In the context of HEIs, it can be concluded that the better the
management of internal resources, the better their performance. Internal resources can
be tangible or intangible assets [22–25]. The most significant internal resources owned by
universities are intangible assets [26]. In the era of a knowledge economy, the most critical
intangible resource is intellectual capital [27,28] which consists of human capital, relational
capital, and structural capital [29–31]. Intellectual capital can improve HEIs’ performance
because of their ability to transfer knowledge. Scholars [29,31,32] also argue that the process
of internationalization and the priority of accessibility of higher education resources are the
primary motivations for interacting globally to achieve a competitive advantage [33,34].
RBV is relevant for this study because of its ability to explain the importance of in-
ternal organizational factors such as global market orientation, intellectual capital, and
open innovation as the main determinants of improving the competitiveness and perfor-
mance of Indonesian HEIs. To succeed in the global market, HEIs need to identify their
potential customers and competitors and prepare their intellectual capital to meet global
standards. HEIs also need to create various innovations to meet customer demand and
win global competition. Open innovation provides another way to access new sources
of knowledge outside the organization so that it is more efficient and minimizes barriers,
such as finance, technology, and human resources. Organizations that implement open
innovation activities need to analyze their impacts on competitiveness because innovation
may affect several competitiveness constructs [35]. A global market orientation strategy
combined with the ability to commercialize internal innovations to external parties will
provide a better competitive advantage [36,37]. Thus, it is mandatory for every university
to develop the appropriate strategies and management of internal resources to achieve a
global competitive advantage.
that the more effective the implementation of the global market orientation strategy, the
better the performance of HEIs. Based on these reasons, the first hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Global market orientation strategy has a positive effect on HEIs’ performance.
2 Appiah-Adu (1998) Market Orientation Performance (ROI dan Companies in Ghana No effect
Sales Growth)
4 Grewal and Tansuhaj (2001) Market Orientation and Performance After Crisis Companies in Thailand Negative effect
StrategicFlexibility
5 Sandvik and Sandvik (2003) Market Orientation Business Performance Hotels in Norway Negative effect
Langerak, Jan Hultink and Organizational
6 Market Orientation Companies in Netherland No effect
Robben (2004) Performance
Organizational
7 Xie, Liu and Chen (2007) Market Orientation Companies in China No effect
Performance
8 Private universities in
Zebal and Goodwin (2012) Market Orientation Performance Bangladesh Positive effect
Market orientation,
technology orientation, Organizational Pharmaceutical
9 Masa’deh et al. (2018) Positive effect
entrepreneurial Performance companies in Jordan
orientation
Sampaio,
10 Hernández-Mogollón and Market Orientation Business Performance Hotels in Portugal Positive effect
Rodrigues (2019)
11 Nakos, Dimitratos and Global Market International Companies in UAE Positive effect
Elbanna (2019) Orientation Performance
Competitive Advantage
12 Udriyah and Azam (2019) Market Orientation and Business Textile SMEs Positive effect
Performance
13 Bamfo and Kraa (2019) Competitor Orientation Business Performance SMEs in Ghana No effect
2.3. The Mediating Role of Intellectual Capital Readiness on Global Market Orientation
Strategy—HEIs’ Performance Relationship
Globalization is a challenge for organizations and their interactions with global mar-
kets. Organizations that focus their orientation on global markets need to adjust their
resources’ values and capabilities [62], especially their intellectual capital, per global stan-
dards. RBV argues that intellectual capital plays an important role as an intangible asset that
improves organizational performance. Organizations that optimally manage intellectual
capital will increase their organizational value [63–66]. In the context of higher education,
intellectual capital can be an indicator used by universities to attract international students
and lecturers and improve their academic performance [67,68].
Intellectual capital is one of the key strategic factors for improving organizational
performance. As stated by [13], intellectual capital facilitates the implementation of organi-
zational strategy. A study by [69] on universities in Thailand showed that intellectual capital
positively affects the universities’ performances, while a study by [70] on universities in
Columbia proved that intellectual capital improves performance, including productivity,
graduate quality, and international collaboration. Referring to [71], “readiness” means
that intangible assets must be ready to support effective strategy execution. Intellectual
capital readiness also implies that human capital, structural capital, and relational capi-
tal must be developed and prepared by HEIs to support strategy execution. HEIs need
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 29 5 of 18
to pay special attention to the development and readiness of intellectual capital to meet
the global standards. Thus, this study argues that the higher the level of global market
orientation strategy implementation, the higher the need for intellectual capital readiness
to support strategy execution; furthermore, this will influence HEIs’ performance. Based
on the previous arguments, the second hypothesis can be proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Intellectual capital readiness mediates the effect of global market orientation
strategy on HEIs’ performance.
2.4. The Mediating Role of Open Innovation on Global Market Orientation Strategy—HEIs’
Performance Relationship
Global market orientation strategy is a strategy for determining orientation and the
actions necessary to create added value when marketing products in global markets. Or-
ganizations that adopt the global market orientation strategy need to better understand
their consumer needs, competitor capabilities, and other external forces [48,57,72]. Orga-
nizations with a global market orientation strategy will encourage the creation of inno-
vation [61,73], and open innovation plays an important role in the process of improving
performance [16,17]. A study conducted by [17] on 178 universities in Sri Lanka showed
that open innovation has a positive influence on HEIs’ performance. A study by [16] on
244 organizations in Spain also proved that open innovation strategy positively influences
organizational performance. In the context of HEIs, this study argues that the more exten-
sive the adoption of global market orientation strategy, the higher the need for innovations;
consequently, this will enhance HEIs’ performance. Based on the previous explanation, the
following third hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Open innovation mediates the effect of global market orientation strategy on
HEIs’ performance.
2.5. The Mediating Role of Intellectual Capital Readiness and Open Innovation on Global Market
Orientation Strategy—HEIs’ Performance Relationship
RBV argues that intellectual capital is a driver of competitive advantage because it
can integrate innovation from within and outside an organization, thus its readiness is im-
portant. Therefore, an organization adopting a global market orientation strategy requires
intellectual capital readiness for an effective strategy execution and triggers open innovation
to enhance performance. Although previous scholars partially examined the relationships
between strategy, intellectual capital, open innovation, and performance [11,15–17], a more
integrative and comprehensive model does not exist. In the context of HEIs, this study
argues that the more extensive the adoption of global market orientation strategy, the more
important the role of intellectual capital readiness in strategy execution. This triggers the
need for open innovation, and finally, these innovations improve HEIs’ performance. Based
on the previous arguments, the following fourth hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Intellectual capital readiness and open innovation sequentially mediate the
effect of global market orientation strategy on HEIs’ performance.
Intellectual
Capital
Readiness
Open
Innovation
that support operational activities; (13) build a network with the academic community;
(14) maintain strategic relationships with other universities, companies, and governments;
(15) high concern for the health of community; (16) periodically conduct surveys and evalu-
ations to stakeholders regarding the level of satisfaction; and (17) capability to implement
research results for the community.
3.4. Analysis
To analyze data and test the hypotheses studied, partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed for the following reasons: (1) it can handle a
relatively small sample size; (2) it is able to deal with several latent variables with various
indicators [86]. To process research data, the WarpPLS version 7.0 (ScriptWarp Systems:
Laredo, TX, USA) was used. The analysis was carried out in two steps: (1) measurement
model analysis, and (2) structural model analysis. The results of the analysis are reported
in the next section.
4. Results
4.1. Characteristics of Respondents
Table 3 presents the characteristics of respondents. It is dominated by the follow-
ing characteristics: male (71%), non-professors (77%), over 50 years old (64%), more
than 5 years’ experience (63%), BLU university status (47%), and superior (excellence)
accreditation status.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 29 9 of 18
Frequency
Classification Data Sub-Classification
Absolute Percentage
Male 85 71%
Gender
Female 34 29%
Professor 27 23%
Position
Non-Professor 92 77%
<40 years 10 8%
Age 40–50 years 45 38%
>50 years 64 54%
<5 years 56 47%
Experience
>5 years 63 53%
State University-BH (a) 41 34%
University Status State University-BLU (b) 56 47%
State University-Satker (c) 2 2%
Private University 20 17%
Excellent 90 76%
Very Good 23 19%
Accreditation
Good 2 2%
Not filled 4 3%
Notes: BH (a) stands for Badan Hukum, which means that the university is established by the Government with
the status of an autonomous public legal entity. BLU (b) stands for Badan Layanan Umum, which means that the
university is established by the Government and all non-tax revenues are managed autonomously and reported
to the state. Satker (c) stands for Satuan Kerja, which means that the university is established by the government
and all revenues must be deposited into the state account (Ministry of Finance) before being used.
Table 5 presents the results of the discriminant validity test, proving that this study
meets the requirements of this test. Therefore, it can be concluded that this study is valid
and reliable.
show that the Q2 value of intellectual capital readiness was 0.342, open innovation was
0.596, and HEIs’ performance was 0.264. It can be concluded that this study has a good
predictive relevance.
The next step is to test the hypothesis of direct effect. If this result is significant, it will
continue with the second test, namely indirect testing. Table 6 (Panel A) shows that global
market orientation strategy has a significant and positive direct effect on HEIs’ performance
(β coefficient = 0.23; p-value < 0.01; R2 = 0.05). The result shows that H1, which states that
global market orientation strategy has a positive effect on HEIs’ performance, is supported.
To test the role of mediation, this study refers to [92], stating that: (1) a mediation
is not supported if the β coefficient of the direct effect is the same as that when the
mediation variables are included in the full model; (2) a partial mediation exists when,
after including the mediation variables, the β coefficient of the direct effect decreases and
remains significant; (3) a full mediation exists if, after including the mediation variables,
the β coefficient of the direct effect decreases and becomes insignificant.
Table 6 (Panel B) shows the results of the full model after including the mediating
variables of intellectual capital readiness and open innovation. The direct effect of global
market orientation strategy on HEI’s performance shows a significant decrease in the β
coefficient of 0.23 with p < 0.01 to 0.10 and a p-value = 0.14. The result indicates a full
mediating role [91]. The effect of global market orientation strategy on intellectual capital
readiness produces the β coefficient of 0.57 (p < 0.01), and the effect of intellectual capital
readiness on HEIs’ performance has a β coefficient of 0.54 (p < 0.01). These results prove
that intellectual capital readiness fully mediates the effect of global market orientation
strategy on HEIs’ performance; thus, H2 is supported. The β coefficient of the effect of
global market orientation strategy on open innovation is 0.64 (p < 0.01). The β coefficient of
the effect of open innovation on HEIs’ performance is 0.04 (p = 0.33). Because one of the
paths is not significant, open innovation does not mediate the effect of the global market
orientation strategy on HEIs’ performance. Thus, H3, stating that open innovation mediates
the effect of global market orientation strategy on HEIs’ performance, is not supported.
Global market orientation strategy positively affects intellectual capital readiness with
the β coefficient of 0.57 (p < 0.01). The β coefficient of the effect of intellectual capital
readiness on open innovation is 0.2 (p < 0.01). However, the β coefficient of the effect
of open innovation on HEIs’ performance is 0.04 (p = 0.33). Therefore, H4, stating that
intellectual capital readiness and open innovation sequentially mediate the effect of global
Readiness mance
Intellectual
β = 0.57 β = 0.54
Capital
(P < 0.01) (P < 0.01)
Readiness
R2 = 0.32
β = 0.64 β = 0.04
(P < 0.01) Open (P = 0.33)
Innovation
R2 = 0.59
5. Discussion
5.1. Effect of Global Market Orientation Strategy on HEIs’ Performance
As predicted by RBV, internal resources and organizational capabilities increase com-
petitive advantage and sustainability performance [96]. This result supports the first
hypothesis stating that global market orientation strategy positively affects HEI’s perfor-
mance. This supports the previous studies of [46,61], which proved that orientation toward
global markets improves a company’s performance. In the context of HEIs in Indonesia,
the government encourages the HEIs to become globally oriented universities with interna-
tional standards so that they can compete with other universities at the global level. Amid
the COVID-19 pandemic, the Indonesian HEIs are also encouraged to launch online learn-
ing programs, which can attract international students. Universities are also encouraged to
obtain international accreditations, such as Abest21, ASIC, APHEA, AACSB, and others to
enhance their global quality and recognition. The increasing quality of Indonesian HEIs
is reflected in the number of universities included in the QS World Ranking University,
from 11 universities in 2021 to 16 universities in 2022. Thus, HEIs that actively adopt global
market orientation strategy enhance their global competitiveness and performance.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 29 13 of 18
5.2. Mediating Role of Intellectual Capital Readiness on the Global Market Orientation
Strategy—HEIs’ Performance Relationship
In line with RBV, the results prove that intellectual capital readiness partially mediates
the effect of global market orientation strategy on HEIs’ performance. This supports [68],
proving the role of intellectual capital in enhancing HEIs’ performance. This study focuses
more on intellectual capital readiness, which must be developed according to the require-
ment of the global market orientation strategy. The Indonesian HEIs that adopt the global
market orientation strategy carry out several programs to improve the readiness of intellec-
tual capital so that the execution of university strategies becomes more effective, including:
(1) running a teaching staff certification program to ensure the quality and readiness of
their human capital; (2) establishing a dual degree/joint program by cooperating with other
international universities; and (3) strengthening higher education management systems
(ISO, Malcolm Baldrige) as an effort to achieve international recognition; and (4) increasing
the number of patents and intellectual property owned. With the high level of intellectual
capital readiness, HEIs’ performance will be better, as reflected in the academic reputation
and employer reputation in the QS WUR assessment.
5.4. Mediating Role of Intellectual Capital Readiness and Open Innovation on Global Market
Orientation—HEIs’ Performance Relationship
The results demonstrate that global market orientation strategy affects intellectual
capital readiness, and then intellectual capital readiness encourages open innovation; un-
fortunately, open innovation does not affect HEIs’ performance. The results support [14,15],
proving that intellectual capital affects open innovation. HEIs with a global market ori-
entation strategy need to develop and prepare their intellectual capital to increase open
innovations. Intellectual capital that has met global standards will have better knowl-
edge and capabilities for creating innovations to enhance performance. Unfortunately,
most innovations produced by universities do not affect HEIs’ performance because of
limited research funds, the reduction in research funds to finance the COVID-19 pandemic,
the low downstream of research, and the lack of link and match between universities
and industries.
Using a sample of 119 schools/faculties derived from the best 50 state and private HEIs in
Indonesia, based on the Webometrics 2021, the RBV and the partial least squares-structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) were employed to explain the relationships among con-
structs and to test the hypotheses studied. The study revealed the following empirical
results: (1) global market orientation strategy has a positive effect on HEIs performance;
(2) intellectual capital readiness fully mediates the influence of global market orientation
strategy on HEIs’ performance; (3) open innovation does not mediate the influence of
global market orientation strategy on HEIs’ performance; and (4) global market orientation
strategy affects intellectual capital readiness, intellectual capital readiness affects open
innovation, but open innovation does not affect HEIs’ performance.
As the HEIs play a crucial role in the advancement of a country, the global education
competition and the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Indonesian HEIs to focus on enhancing
their customers’ satisfaction by adopting the global standards. The global market orienta-
tion strategy is one of the main focuses of universities to attract international attention and
improve global performance. The strategy demands the readiness of internal resources,
especially the intellectual capital readiness of HEIs. Intellectual capital readiness drives
open innovation and improves performance. However, the finding reveals that open inno-
vation by the Indonesian HEIs is not optimal, and it does not affect their performance due
to limited funds, the reduction in research funds to finance the COVID-19 pandemic, low
downstream of research, and lack of link and match between universities and industries.
universities in Indonesia. Future research is recommended in order to (1) use the secondary
and time series data; (2) test the same model using a sample of HEIs other than those
of Webometrics; and (3) examine the role of the other variables, such as environmental
uncertainties, management control system or performance management system, which
play a vital role in improving HEIs’ performance.
6.5. Implication
The results of this study imply that the HEIs’ open innovations must be linked to the
relevant industries or directly executed in the community. The program of link and match
between the HEIs and the related industries must be improved. The innovations must be
widely shared and implemented in the community. At present, HEIs’ innovations are not
properly used by the industries or widely implemented in the community; therefore, they
do not have a significant impact on HEIs’ performance.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.T. and N.S.; Data curation, H.H.; Formal analysis, H.H.;
Funding acquisition, B.T.; Investigation, A.F. and D.N.A.; Methodology, J.J.; Project administration,
D.N.A.; Resources, B.T.; Software, A.F.; Supervision, N.S.; Validation, D.N.A.; Writing—original draft,
B.T. and N.S.; Writing—review and editing, J.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Universitas Airlangga, grant number 774/UN3.15/PT/2021.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: Authors would like to thank Universitas Airlangga for funding this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Bae, T.J.; Qian, S.; Miao, C.; Fiet, J.O. The Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A
Meta–Analytic Review. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 38, 217–254. [CrossRef]
2. Passaro, R.; Quinto, I.; Thomas, A. The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intention and human capital. J. Intellect.
Cap. 2018, 19, 135–156. [CrossRef]
3. Masnun, M.; Sulistyowati, E.; Ronaboyd, I. Questioning the Management of Intellectual Property in Universities in Indonesia. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Science 2019 (ICSS 2019), Surabaya City, Indonesia, 17–18 October 2019.
[CrossRef]
4. Penrose, E. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1959.
5. Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strat. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180. [CrossRef]
6. Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [CrossRef]
7. Chabowski, B.R.; Mena, J.A. A Review of Global Competitiveness Research: Past Advances and Future Directions. J. Int. Mark.
2017, 25, 1–24. [CrossRef]
8. Jogaratnam, G. The effect of market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and human capital on positional advantage: Evidence
from the restaurant industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 60, 104–113. [CrossRef]
9. Kirca, A.H.; Jayachandran, S.; Bearden, W.O. Market Orientation: A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of its Antecedents
and Impact on Performance. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 24–41. [CrossRef]
10. Walliser, E.; Mignon, S. General presentation: Society of knowledge, intellectual capital and innovation. J. Innov. Econ. 2015, 17,
3–11. [CrossRef]
11. Mailath, G.J.; Nocke, V.; Postlewaite, A. Business Strategy, Human Capital, and Managerial Incentives. J. Econ. Manag. Strat. 2004,
13, 617–633. [CrossRef]
12. Keyghobandi, A.; Damankeshideh, M. The Impact of Business Strategy and Corporate Governance on Intellectual Capital
Dis-closure in Selected Companies of Tehran Stock Exchange Using the panel data model. Financ. Eng. Secur. Manag. 2020, 11,
199–219.
13. Rylander, A.; Peppard, J. From implementing strategy to embodying strategy. J. Intellect. Cap. 2003, 4, 316–331. [CrossRef]
14. Obeidat, B.Y.; Tarhini, A.; Masa’deh, R.E.; Aqqad, N.O. The impact of intellectual capital on innovation via the mediating role of
knowledge management: A structural equation modelling approach. Int. J. Knowl. Manag. Stud. 2017, 8, 273–298. [CrossRef]
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 29 16 of 18
15. Najar, T.; Dhaouadi, K.; Ben Zammel, I. Intellectual Capital Impact on Open Innovation: The Case of Technology-Based Sectors in
Tunisia. J. Innov. Econ. 2020, 32, 75–106. [CrossRef]
16. Oltra-Mestre, M.J.; Flor, M.L.; Alfaro, J.A. Open innovation and firm performance: The role of organizational mechanisms. Bus.
Process. Manag. J. 2018, 24, 814–836. [CrossRef]
17. Weerasinghe, I.; Dedunu, H. Contribution of academics to university–industry knowledge exchange: A study of open innovation
in Sri Lankan universities. Ind. High. Educ. 2020, 35, 233–243. [CrossRef]
18. Sjafrizal, T.; Pratami, D. Exploring Academic Patenting in Indonesia (1990–2015). J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1150, 12061. [CrossRef]
19. Yumhi, Y.; Martoyo, D.; Tunnufusm, Z.; Timotius, E. Determinant Factors of the Performance of Higher Institutions in Indonesia.
J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 667–673. [CrossRef]
20. Wernerfelt, B. Harmonised implementation of Application-Specific Messages (ASMs). Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 2, 1–12.
21. Assensoh-Kodua, A. The resource-based view: A tool of key competency for competitive advantage. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2019,
17, 143–152. [CrossRef]
22. Bontis, N. Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Manag. Decis. 1998, 36, 63–76. [CrossRef]
23. Kamasak, R. The contribution of tangible and intangible resources, and capabilities to a firm’s profitability and market perfor-
mance. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2017, 26, 252–275. [CrossRef]
24. Yang, C.-S.; Lirn, T.-C. Revisiting the resource-based view on logistics performance in the shipping industry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
Logist. Manag. 2017, 47, 884–905. [CrossRef]
25. Chatzoglou, P.D.; Chatzoudes, D.; Sarigiannidis, L.; Theriou, G. The role of firm-specific factors in the strategy-performance
relationship: Revisiting the resource-based view of the firm and the VRIO framework. Manag. Res. Rev. 2018, 41, 46–73. [CrossRef]
26. Secundo, G.; Beer, C.D.; Schutte, C.; Passiante, G. Mobilising intellectual capital to improve European universities’ competi-
tiveness: The technology transfer offices’ role. J. Intellect. Cap. 2017, 18, 607–624. [CrossRef]
27. Buenechea-Elberdin, M. Structured literature review about intellectual capital and innovation. J. Intellect. Cap. 2017, 18, 262–285.
[CrossRef]
28. Mahaputra, N.K.A.; Wiagustini, N.L.P.; Yadnyata, I.K.; Artini, N.L.G.S. Organization Behavior, Intellectual Capital, and Per-
formance: A Case Study of Microfinance Institutions in Indonesia. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 549–561. [CrossRef]
29. Veltri, S.; Mastroleo, G.; Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M. Measuring intellectual capital in the university sector using a fuzzy logic expert
system. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2014, 12, 175–192. [CrossRef]
30. Guthrie, J.; Parker, L.D. Reflections and projections. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2017, 30, 2–17. [CrossRef]
31. Pedro, E.D.M.; Leitão, J.; Alves, H. Bridging Intellectual Capital, Sustainable Development and Quality of Life in Higher Education
Institutions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 479. [CrossRef]
32. Guthrie, J.; Dumay, J. New frontiers in the use of intellectual capital in the public sector. J. Intellect. Cap. 2015, 16, 258–266.
[CrossRef]
33. Hitt, M.A.; Dacin, M.T.; Levitas, E.; Arregle, J.-L.; Borza, A. Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts:
Resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 449–467. [CrossRef]
34. Sanders, J.S.; Wong, T. International partner selection among higher education institutions in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan:
A resource-based view. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2020, 43, 214–229. [CrossRef]
35. Baierle, I.C.; Benitez, G.B.; Nara, E.O.B.; Schaefer, J.L.; Sellitto, M.A. Influence of Open Innovation Variables on the Competitive
Edge of Small and Medium Enterprises. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 179. [CrossRef]
36. Santoro, G.; Ferraris, A.; Giacosa, E.; Giovando, G. How SMEs Engage in Open Innovation: A Survey. J. Knowl. Econ. 2018, 9,
561–574. [CrossRef]
37. Mengüç, B. Creating a Firm-Level Dynamic Capability through Capitalizing on Market Orientation and Innovativeness. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 2006, 34, 63–73. [CrossRef]
38. Greenley, G.E. Market Orientation and Company Performance: Empirical Evidence from UK Companies. Br. J. Manag. 1995, 6,
1–13. [CrossRef]
39. Appiah-Adu, K. Market orientation and performance: Empirical tests in a transition economy. J. Strat. Mark. 1998, 6, 25–45.
[CrossRef]
40. Caruana, A.; Ramaseshan, B.; Ewing, M. Market Orientation and Performance in the Public Sector: The Role of Organizational
Commitment. J. Glob. Mark. 1999, 12, 59–79. [CrossRef]
41. Grewal, R.; Tansuhaj, P. Building Organizational Capabilities for Managing Economic Crisis: The Role of Market Orientation and
Strategic Flexibility. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 67–80. [CrossRef]
42. Sandvik, I.L.; Sandvik, K. The impact of market orientation on product innovativeness and business performance. Int. J. Res.
Mark. 2003, 20, 355–376. [CrossRef]
43. Langerak, F.; Hultink, E.J.; Robben, H.S.J. The role of predevelopment activities in the relationship between market orientation
and performance. R&D Manag. 2004, 34, 295–309. [CrossRef]
44. Xie, H.; Liu, C.; Chen, C. Relationships among market orientation, learning orientation, organizational innovation and orga-
nizational performance: An empirical study in the Pearl River Delta region of China. Front. Bus. Res. China 2007, 1, 222–253.
[CrossRef]
45. Zebal, M.A.; Goodwin, D.R. Market orientation and performance in private universities. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2012, 30, 339–357.
[CrossRef]
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 29 17 of 18
46. Masa’Deh, R.; Al-Henzab, J.; Tarhini, A.; Obeidat, B.Y. The associations among market orientation, technology orientation,
entrepreneurial orientation and organizational performance. Benchmarking Int. J. 2018, 25, 3117–3142. [CrossRef]
47. Sampaio, C.; Hernández-Mogollón, J.M.; Rodrigues, R.G. Assessing the relationship between market orientation and business
performance in the hotel industry—The mediating role of service quality. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 644–663. [CrossRef]
48. Nakos, G.; Dimitratos, P.; Elbanna, S. The mediating role of alliances in the international market orientation-performance
relationship of smes. Int. Bus. Rev. 2018, 28, 603–612. [CrossRef]
49. Udriyah, U.; Tham, J.; Azam, S.M.F. The effects of market orientation and innovation on competitive advantage and business
performance of textile SMEs. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2019, 1419–1428. [CrossRef]
50. Bamfo, B.A.; Kraa, J.J. Market orientation and performance of small and medium enterprises in Ghana: The mediating role of
innovation. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2019, 6. [CrossRef]
51. Anabila, P.; Kastner, A.N.A.; Bulley, C.A.; Allan, M.M. Market orientation: A key to survival and competitive advantage in
Ghana’s private universities. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2019, 30, 125–144. [CrossRef]
52. Abbu, H.R.; Gopalakrishna, P. Synergistic effects of market orientation implementation and internalization on firm performance:
Direct marketing service provider industry. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 125, 851–863. [CrossRef]
53. Lim, J.-S.; Darley, W.K.; Marion, D. Market orientation, innovation commercialization capability and firm performance relation-
ships: The moderating role of supply chain influence. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2017, 32, 913–924. [CrossRef]
54. Alotaibi, M.B.G.; Zhang, Y. The relationship between export market orientation and export performance: An empirical study.
Appl. Econ. 2016, 49, 2253–2258. [CrossRef]
55. Joensuu-Salo, S.; Sorama, K.; Viljamaa, A.; Varamäki, E. Firm Performance among Internationalized SMEs: The Interplay of
Market Orientation, Marketing Capability and Digitalization. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 31. [CrossRef]
56. Yayla, S.; Yeniyurt, S.; Uslay, C.; Cavusgil, E. The role of market orientation, relational capital, and internationalization speed in
foreign market exit and re-entry decisions under turbulent conditions. Int. Bus. Rev. 2018, 27, 1105–1115. [CrossRef]
57. Fernandes, C.I.; Ferreira, J.; Lobo, C.; Raposo, M. The impact of market orientation on the internationalisation of SMEs. Rev. Int.
Bus. Strat. 2020, 30, 123–143. [CrossRef]
58. He, X.; Wei, Y. Linking market orientation to international market selection and international performance. Int. Bus. Rev. 2010, 20,
535–546. [CrossRef]
59. Jawad, S.U.R.S.; Naushad, S.; Yousaf, S.; Yousaf, Z. Exploring performance of software houses: Market orientation and mediating
role of firm innovativeness. World J. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 16, 1–11. [CrossRef]
60. Sanchez, R.G.; Bolívar, M.P.R.; Hernandez, A.M.L. Which Are the Main Factors Influencing Corporate Social Responsibility
Information Disclosures on Universities’ Websites. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 524. [CrossRef]
61. Prifti, R.; Alimehmeti, G. Market orientation, innovation, and firm performance—an analysis of Albanian firms. J. Innov. Entrep.
2017, 6, 8. [CrossRef]
62. Sujudi, N.; Komariah, A. Leadership Characteristics Era Disruption: Strategy for Intellectual Capital Building Leadership
in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Research of Educational Administration and
Management (ICREAM 2019), Bandung, Indonesia, 17 July 2019. [CrossRef]
63. Andreeva, T.; Garanina, T. Do All Elements of Intellectual Capital Matter for Organizational Performance? Evidence from Russian
Context. J. Intellect. Cap. 2016, 17, 397–412. [CrossRef]
64. Kianto, A.; Sáenz, J.; Aramburu, N. Knowledge-based human resource management practices, intellectual capital and innovation.
J. Bus. Res. 2017, 81, 11–20. [CrossRef]
65. Rossi, F.M.; Nicolò, G.; Polcini, P.T. New trends in intellectual capital reporting: Exploring online intellectual capital disclosure in
Italian universities. J. Intellect. Cap. 2018, 19, 814–835. [CrossRef]
66. Huang, C.-C.; Huang, S.-M. External and internal capabilities and organizational performance: Does intellectual capital matter?
Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2020, 25, 111–120. [CrossRef]
67. Brusca, I.; Cohen, S.; Manes-Rossi, F.; Nicolo, G. Intellectual capital disclosure and academic rankings in European universities:
Do they go hand in hand? Meditari Account. Res. 2019, 28, 51–71. [CrossRef]
68. Nicolò, G.; Raimo, N.; Polcini, P.T.; Vitolla, F. Unveiling the link between performance and Intellectual Capital disclosure in the
context of Italian Public universities. Eval. Program Plan. 2021, 88, 101969. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Saengchai, S.; Sutduean, J. The impact of intellectual capital on performance of Universities in Thailand: The mediating role of
entrepreneur orientation. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang. 2019, 6, 381–401.
70. Cricelli, L.; Greco, M.; Grimaldi, M.; Dueñas, L.P.L. Intellectual capital and university performance in emerging countries. J.
Intellect. Cap. 2018, 19, 71–95. [CrossRef]
71. Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. Strategic Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA,
USA, 2004.
72. Knight, G.A.; Kim, D. International business competence and the contemporary firm. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2009, 40, 255–273.
[CrossRef]
73. Tjahjadi, B.; Soewarno, N.; Nadyaningrum, V.; Aminy, A. Human capital readiness and global market orientation in Indonesian
Micro-, Small- and-Medium-sized Enterprises business performance. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2020, 71, 79–99. [CrossRef]
74. Aminu, I.M.; Shariff, M.N.M. Strategic Orientation, Access to Finance, Business Environment and SMEs Performance in Nigeria:
Data Screening and Preliminary Analysis. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2014, 6, 124–131.
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 29 18 of 18
75. Slater, S.F.; Narver, J.C. The Positive Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability: A Balanced Replication. J. Bus. Res.
2000, 48, 69–73. [CrossRef]
76. Alhakimi, W.; Mahmoud, M. The impact of market orientation on innovativeness: Evidence from Yemeni SMEs. Asia Pac. J. Innov.
Entrep. 2020, 14, 47–59. [CrossRef]
77. Poole, S.M. Developing relationships with school customers: The role of market orientation. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2017, 31,
1054–1068. [CrossRef]
78. Edwards, A.L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction; Creative Media Partners Limited: London, UK, 1957.
79. Ramírez, Y.; Gordillo, S. Recognition and measurement of intellectual capital in Spanish universities. J. Intellect. Cap. 2014, 15,
173–188. [CrossRef]
80. Bogers, M.; Chesbrough, H.; Moedas, C. Open Innovation: Research, Practices, and Policies. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2018, 60, 5–16.
[CrossRef]
81. Gentile-Lüdecke, S.; De Oliveira, R.T.; Paul, J. Does organizational structure facilitate inbound and outbound open innovation in
SMEs? Small Bus. Econ. 2019, 55, 1091–1112. [CrossRef]
82. Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation. In Open Innovation: Researching a
New Paradigm; Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006.
83. Popa, S.; Soto-Acosta, P.; Martinez-Conesa, I. Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation:
An empirical study in SMEs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 118, 134–142. [CrossRef]
84. Tjahjadi, B.; Soewarno, N.; Astri, E.; Hariyati, H. Does intellectual capital matter in performance management sys-tem-
organizational performance relationship? Experience of higher education institutions in Indonesia. J. Intellect. Cap. 2019,
20, 533–554. [CrossRef]
85. Asiedu, M.A.; Anyigba, H.; Ofori, K.S.; Ampong, G.O.A.; Addae, J.A. Factors influencing innovation performance in higher
education institutions. Learn. Organ. 2020, 27, 365–378. [CrossRef]
86. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous Applications, Better Results
and Higher Acceptance. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 1–12. [CrossRef]
87. Chin, W.W. Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 1998, 22, 1–8.
88. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31,
2–24. [CrossRef]
89. Segars, A. Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information
systems research. Omega 1997, 25, 107–121. [CrossRef]
90. Ratmono, D.; Sholihin, D. Analisis SEM-PLS Dengan WarpPLS 3.0 Untuk Hubungan Nonlinier Dalam Penelitian Sosial Dan Bisnis, 1st
ed.; Penerbit Andi: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2013.
91. Shmueli, G.; Ray, S.; Estrada, J.M.V.; Chatla, S.B. The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. J. Bus. Res.
2016, 69, 4552–4564. [CrossRef]
92. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [CrossRef]
93. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544.
[CrossRef]
94. Alves, C.A.; Gama, A.P.M.; Augusto, M. Family influence and firm performance: The mediating role of stewardship. J. Small Bus.
Enterp. Dev. 2020, 28, 185–204. [CrossRef]
95. Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10. [CrossRef]
96. Wang, Y.; Shi, S.; Chen, Y.; Gursoy, D. An examination of market orientation and environmental marketing strategy: The case of
Chinese firms. Serv. Ind. J. 2018, 39, 1046–1071. [CrossRef]
97. Greco, M.; Grimaldi, M.; Cricelli, L. An analysis of the open innovation effect on firm performance. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34,
501–516. [CrossRef]
98. Elche-Hotelano, D. Sources of knowledge, investments and appropriability as determinants of innovation: An empirical study in
service firms. Innovation 2011, 13, 220–235. [CrossRef]
99. Lin, J.-Y. Effects on diversity of R&D sources and human capital on industrial performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 85,
168–184. [CrossRef]