Frugal innovation is increasingly treated as a capability for developing affordable, resource-efficient, and context-appropriate solutions, yet its antecedents remain fragmented across the literature and are insufficiently examined in community-embedded craft production. This study evaluates two connected sets of respondent-level associations in traditional craft villages in Hanoi, Vietnam. The resource-recombination route links perceived empowering leadership, knowledge management, organic innovative culture, and network embeddedness with bricolage and, in turn, perceived frugal-innovation capability. The institution-market route links network embeddedness with perceived government support, perceived customer requirements, customer participation, and frugal-innovation capability. A cross-sectional survey produced 432 returned questionnaires; 416 retained cases were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). All constructs are interpreted as respondents’ perceptions of practices and conditions in their focal production or business units rather than as objective organization-level measures. Bricolage had the largest direct association with perceived frugal-innovation capability (β = 0.441), and empowering leadership had the largest association with bricolage (β = 0.492). Network embeddedness was associated with several specific indirect routes, while perceived government support was associated with frugal-innovation capability both directly and through customer-facing constructs. The model explained 52.5% of the adjusted variance in perceived frugal-innovation capability. The findings support a resource-conversion interpretation centered on bricolage, but the cross-sectional, single-source design does not establish temporal mediation or causal effects. The craft-village setting informs interpretation; heritage preservation, cultural authenticity, and objective resource scarcity were not directly measured and therefore remain boundary conditions for future research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Le et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: