As a new force for innovation and development, SRDI firms are the backbone of improving the stability of the industrial chain and supply chain, and play an important role in promoting high-quality economic development. The widespread adoption of digital technologies has provided enterprises with innovation opportunities, and more and more enterprises have been participating in digital innovation to maintain competitive advantages, but in the digital innovation process, problems like fuzzy path, uncoordinated resource allocation, and insufficient digital capability hinder some enterprises from participating in digital innovation. Therefore, for both SRDI and non-SRDI firms, how to arrange resources to better realize digital innovation is a common focus. Differentiating the differences in the development paths of SRDI and non-SRDI firms can promote enterprises of different types to optimize the allocation of resources to carry out digital innovation, which is conducive to cultivating a good industry ecology, thus accelerating the construction of a modern industrial system.
Following the“context-configuration-capability” theory and the resource orchestration theory, this study uses the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) method to explore the combined effects of external support, digital platform, resource flexibility, coordination flexibility, absorption capability, and digital collaboration capability of SRDI firms and non-SRDI firms on their digital innovation, in order to explore the configuration path and heterogeneity characteristics of high-level digital innovation in firms. The configuration paths of digital innovation of SRDI and non-SRDI firms are compared and analyzed to explore whether their innovation paths are much the same or utterly different, so as to further promote SRDI and non-SRDI firms to optimize resource allocation and carry out digital innovation.
Empirical results show that (1) external support, digital platform, resource flexibility, coordination flexibility, absorption capability, and digital collaboration capability cannot alone constitute the necessary conditions for digital innovation of SRDI firms and non-SRDI firms. Multiple factors need to work together in an orderly manner. (2) From the perspective of equivalence of results, there are two innovation governance configuration paths for digital innovation in SRDI firms, i.e.“configuration-led equilibrium” and “configuration-led with capability”. There are three innovation governance configuration paths for digital innovation of non-SRDI firms, i.e., “context-configuration co-dominated type”, “configuration-dominated type based on capability ”, and “configuration-capability co-dominated type”. (3) By comparing the configuration paths of digital innovation between SRDI firms and non-SRDI firms, it is found that the there are clear differences in the configuration paths: resource flexibility is a common core element, and the higher the flexibility of enterprise resources, the more conducive it is to coordinating and matching resource input into innovation activities. Heterogeneity analysis shows that digital platforms are the keys for SRDI firms to carry out digital innovation, while non-SRDI firms mainly rely on coordination flexibility and external support. The research results not only expand the driving factors of digital innovation, but also provide a path basis for SRDI firms and non-SRDI firms to promote modern digital innovation.
The research contributions of this paper are presented in three aspects. First, from the perspective of resource arrangement, the context-structure-capability (3C) framework is constructed to explore the combined influence of multiple factors on digital innovation, which provides a novel lens to analyze the driving factors of digital innovation. From the perspective of integration, the combined effect of driving factors is verified from context and structural ability. The 3C theory is applied to the research of digital innovation for the first time to explore how multi-dimensional factors drive enterprise digital innovation. Second, the study focuses on the market subject of SRDI and non-SRDI firms, compares and analyzes the digital innovation of SRDI firms and non-SRDI firms, which enrich the research objects in the field of digital innovation. Third,it responds to the previous research prospects and appeals of scholars, that is, the in-depth research on how to use digital platforms for innovation and how dynamic capabilities affect digital innovation. After considering multiple factors, the study introduces variables such as digital platform and absorption capacity, and reveals the internal mechanism of enterprises to promote digital innovation; it also provides reference significance for SRDI firms to realize digital innovation.