Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Methods
Data Sources
Data Analysis
Findings from the Four Case Studies
Implications of This Research
References
All Topics
Business and Management
Organizational Behavior and Theory

Learning to innovate; Innovating to learn

Profile image of Irem DemirkanIrem Demirkan

2010

Abstract

Previous studies informed by the concept of absorptive capacity predominantly laid emphasis upon static aspects and for the most part utilized quantitative methods. In contrast, the present comparative case study takes the processual nature of the phenomenon into account. Based upon findings from four case studies in the optics industry in the U.S. and Germany we contribute to the literature by elucidating how technology transfer between research institutions and private sector companies is organized. We highlight the absorption processes involved, the role of meeting management and information exchange practices that are moderated by boundary spanners and power relationships, the institutional and regional embeddedness of actors involved, as well as social factors that serve as a 'glue' for absorptive capacity.

Related papers

Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation
Daniel Levinthal

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990

View PDFchevron_right
Three Essays on Absorptive Capacity beyond R&D
Nadia Weidner

2021

In times of technological dynamics, knowledge intensification and increasing networking between business stakeholders, absorptive capacity has become one of the most prominent concepts in innovation and management research. However, despite the attention devoted to absorptive capacity in the academic community, there is still a limited understanding of how firms without institutionalised R&D departments and formal R&D expenditure can absorb and leverage external knowledge successfully. With its strong focus on R&D-intensive firms and high-tech industries as well as on R&D-related aspects, existing research has overlooked the variety in patterns of knowledge absorption and, due to its reliance on inappropriate measures, tends to underestimate absorptive capacity in non-R&D firms. Therefore, the overall objective of this dissertation is to advance our understanding of absorptive capacity beyond the R&D-based context by providing novel empirical insights on how non-R&D-performing manuf...

View PDFchevron_right
Technology transfer in multi-organizational environments: the case of R&D consortia
David V Gibson

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1991

Research consortia represent a new organizational form which clarifies and highlights harriers and solutions to efficient and timely technology transfer. Using interview, archival, and survey data collected on MCC (the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation), this study suggests that four variables-communication, distance, equivocality, and motivation-are central to technology transfer processes within and between organizations. Managerial implications are presented in terms of the technology transfer grid which depicts different combinations of these variables.

View PDFchevron_right
The organization of R&D and the management of cooperation: controlling a diversity of knowledge sources
Claude Paraponaris

The focus of interest here is the construction of knowledge in firms viewed in the context of their approach to academic collaboration and against the background of transnational activities that bring into play local infrastructures for the diffusion of technologies. The sample of multinational firms we have selected enables us to take stock of the moves towards industrial rationalisation taken by firms seeking to develop their technological globalisation strategies by exploiting a diversity of cognitive resources. Such an evaluation can readily be extended to include an examination of the structures of R&D organisation and of the processes of resource construction. We begin this examination by outlining its objectives and establishing the value of taking account of knowledge and competences in the management of innovation. We analyse the role of the structures of R&D organisation in the globalisation of technology strategies. We deal jointly with the internal organisation of activities (role of innovation projects, human resource management) and with the external organisation of academic collaboration. We underline that the management of knowledge and individual expertise constitute an autonomous framework for the construction of resources in the various R&D units.

View PDFchevron_right
Public research intensity and the structure of German R&D networks: a comparison of 10 technologies
Holger Graf

Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
Absorptive capacity and innovation: When is it better to cooperate?
Abiodun Egbetokun

Jena Economic Research Papers, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
Actor-network theory: opening the black box of the reasons for the involvement of researchers in the technology transfer process
Valéria Da Glória Pereira Brito

Journal of Innovation Management

The process of technology transfer represents a type of social phenomenon that becomes a black box after its completion. That is, access to the process becomes invisible and obscure. The reasons that lead a public researcher to participate in the technology transfer process represented the main concerns to support the research question, whose derived analysis was based on the theoretical-methodological assumptions of the Actor-Network Theory (ANT). This research contributes to understanding the transfer of technology as a complex phenomenon that features the participation of actors with complex and diverse interests; that is, each technology transfer process is singular in its understanding.

View PDFchevron_right
Tracing the flows of knowledge transfer: Latent dimensions and determinants of university–industry interactions in peripheral innovation systems
Tiago Santos Pereira, Manuel Pérez Yruela, Hugo Pinto

Firms interact with universities through a variety of channels, ranging from collaborative research projects, patents, spin-off creation, consultancy and specialized training, to informal relationships. This article explores the combination of mechanisms used by firms in Andalusia, a peripheral region in Spain and Europe, when interacting with universities. Using information from a survey of 737 innovative firms, the empirical study found evidence that university–industry links can be grouped into five latent dimensions (knowledge generation and adaptation, involvement in new organisations, training and exchange of human resources, intellectual property rights, and facilities and equipment) which are mainly based on exploitation or exploration activities. A typology of firms was created, highlighting the large number of firms with no interactions, and six clusters that specialize in specific mechanisms (IPR exploiters, Institutionalized interactors, University facility users, Training and education beneficiaries, Tacit knowledge users, and R&D interactors). The study also presents the determinants for engaging in each type of channel, concluding that whilst firms developing exploitation activities also develop parallel exploration activities, the reverse is not significant. The absorptive capacity of firms is important in determining the type of interaction, but is not fully conclusive about the range of exploration and exploitation activities. The article ends by discussing the policy implications associated with incentives to adapt knowledge transfer mechanisms to the industrial fabric of peripheral innovation systems.

View PDFchevron_right
THE DETERMINANTS OF ORGANISATIONAL KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN THE CONTEXT OF R&D COOPERATION
Ioanna Kastelli

This paper considers R&D cooperation as an organisational form that amplifies and crystallises knowledge to higher levels through interaction. It is shown that absorptive capacity is the main condition for the firm to benefit in this context. Absorptive capacity is studied in terms of its antecedents and constituent elements aiming to avoid tautological definitions and is measured not with the conventional way based on R&D expenditure but on experience and processes for acquiring, assimilating, transforming and exploiting knowledge. These processes encompass R&D and organisational practices for knowledge diffusion as well as interacting and networking activities.

View PDFchevron_right
Connecting absorptive capacity and open innovation
Wim Vanhaverbeke

Available at SSRN …, 2008

View PDFchevron_right

References (71)

  1. Argote, L. and Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 150-169.
  2. Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U. and Woerter, M. 2008. University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10): 1865-1883.
  3. Bengtsson, M. and Söderholm, A. 2002. Bridging distances: Organizing boundary-spanning technology development projects. Regional Studies, 36(3): 263-274.
  4. Bercowitz, J.E.L. and Feldman, M.P. 2006. Entrepreneurial universities and technology trans- fer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1): 175-188.
  5. Burt, R.S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA, Lon- don: Harvard University Press.
  6. Carlsson, B. and Fridh, A.-C. (2002) Technology transfer in United States universities: A sur- vey and statistical analysis. Evolutionary Economics, 12: 199-232.
  7. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. 1989. Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397): 569-596.
  8. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152.
  9. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. 1994. Fortune favors the prepared firm. Management Sci- ence, 40(2): 227-251.
  10. Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of So- ciology, 94: 95-120.
  11. CPC 2009. Carolinas Photonics Consortium. http://www.carolinasphotonics.com (16. Sep- tember 2009).
  12. Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11(3): 147-162.
  13. Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of in- terorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660- 679.
  14. Easterby-Smith, M., Graça, M., Antonacopoulou, E. and Ferdinand, J. 2008. Absorptive ca- pacity: A process perspective. Management Learning, 39(5): 483-501.
  15. Ellis, H.C. 1965. The transfer of learning. New York: Macmillan.
  16. FBH (Ferdinand-Braun-Institut für Höchstfrequenztechnik) 2006. Annual Report. Berlin: FBH. FBH (Ferdinand-Braun-Institut für Höchstfrequenztechnik) 2008. Annual Report. Berlin: FBH.
  17. Feldman, M. and Lendel, I. 2010. Under the lens: The geography of optical science as an emerging industry. Economic Geography, (in print).
  18. Frietsch, R. and Grupp, H. 2002. Technologische Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands auf dem Gebiet der Optischen Technologien. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.
  19. García-Morales, V.J., Ruiz-Moreno, A. and LLorens-Montes, F.J. 2007. Effects of technology absorptive capacity and technology proactivity on organizational learning, innovation and performance: An empirical examination. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(4): 527-558.
  20. Geppert, M. and Clark, E. 2003. Knowledge and learning in transitional ventures: An actor- centred approach. Management Decision, 41(5/6): 433-55.
  21. Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. London: Macmillan.
  22. Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cam- bridge: Polity Press.
  23. Graff, G., Heiman, A. and Zilberman, D. 2002. University research and offices of technology transfer. California Management Review, 45(1), 88-115.
  24. Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 6: 1360- 1380.
  25. Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481-510.
  26. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4): 473-496.
  27. Hansen, M.T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82-111.
  28. Hassink, R. and Wood, M. 1998. Geographic 'clustering' in the German opto electronics in- dustry. Its impact on R&D collaboration and innovation. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 10(4): 277-296.
  29. Hendry, C., Brown, J. and DeFillippi, R. 2000. Regional clustering of high technology-based firms: Opto-electronics in three countries. Regional Studies, 34(2): 129-144.
  30. Hendry, C., Brown, J., DeFillippi, R. and Hassink, R. 1999. Industry clusters as commercial knowledge and institutional networks: Opto-electronics in six regions in the UK, USA and Germany. Grandori, A. (Ed.): Inter-firm networks. Organization and industrial com- petitiveness. London: Routledge, 151-184.
  31. Heppner, K. 1997. Organisation des Wissenstransfers: Grundlagen, Barrieren und Instru- mente. Wiesbaden: DUV.
  32. Heybrock, E. and Brinkmann, U. 2000. Die deutsche Agenda optische Technologien für das 21. Jahrhundert. Düsseldorf: VDI.
  33. Holton, W.C., ed. 2000. Think globally, cluster locally. Marketwatch, January 2000, www.optoelectronics-world.com.
  34. Jarzabkowski, P. and Seidl, D. 2008. The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 29(11): 1391-1426.
  35. Johnson, G., Melin, L. and Whittington, R. 2003. Micro strategy and strategising: Towards an activity-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1): 3-22.
  36. Jones, O. 2006. Developing absorptive capacity in mature organizations: The change agent's role. Management Learning, 37(3): 355-376.
  37. Jones, O. and Craven, M. 2001. Expanding capabilities in a mature manufacturing firm: Ab- sorptive capacity and the TCS. International Small Business Journal, 19(3): 39-55.
  38. Kim, L. 1998. Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building in catch- ing-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9(4): 506-521.
  39. Kodama, F. 1992. Technology fusion and the new R&D. Harvard Business Review, 70:70-78.
  40. Kodama, T. 2008. The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating univer- sity-industry linkages -An empirical study of TAMA in Japan. Research Policy, 37: 1224-1240.
  41. Lane, P.J., Koka, B.R. & Pathak, S. 2006. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 833- 863.
  42. Lane, P.J., Salk, J.E. and Lyles, M.A. 2001. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 1139-1161.
  43. Lane, P.J. and Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learn- ing. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5): 461-477.
  44. Lichtenthaler, U. 2009. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complemen- tarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 822- 846.
  45. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills et al.: Sage.
  46. Marshall, A. 1890. Principles of Economics: An Introductory Volume. London: Macmillan.
  47. Mowery, D.C., Sampat, B.N. and Ziedonis, A.A. 2002. Learning to patent: Institutional Ex- perience, learning, and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992. Management Science, 48(1): 73-89.
  48. National Research Council 1998. Harnessing Light: Optical Science and Engineering for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  49. OECD 2002. Benchmarking industry-science relationships. Paris: OECD.
  50. Optech Consulting 2007a. Optische Technologien. Wirtschaftliche Bedeutung in Deutsch- land. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.
  51. Optech Consulting 2007b. Photonics in Europe. Economic impact. Düsseldorf: VDI.
  52. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. 2003 [1978]. The external control of organizations. A resource dependence perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  53. Polanyi, M. 1966. The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  54. Polt, W., Ramer, C., Gassler, H., Schibany, A. and Schartinger, D. 2001. Benchmarking in- dustry-science relations: The role of framework conditions. Science and Public Policy, 28(4): 247-258.
  55. Reid S.E. and de Brentani U. 2004. The fuzzy front end of new product development for dis- continuous innovations: A theoretical model. The Journal of Product Innovation Man- agement, 21: 170-187
  56. Simonin, B.L. 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7): 595-623.
  57. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepre- neurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  58. Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D. and Link, A. 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational prac- tices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32: 27-48.
  59. Spectaris 2006. Branchenbericht 2005. Die optische, medizinische und mechatronische In- dustrie in Deutschland. Berlin: Spectaris.
  60. Spectaris 2008. Branchenbericht 2007. Die optische, medizinische und mechatronische In- dustrie in Deutschland. Berlin: Spectaris.
  61. Sydow, J., Lerch, F., Huxham, C. and Hibbert, P. 2007. Developing photonics clusters. Com- modities, contracts and contradictions. London: Advanced Institute of Management Re- search.
  62. Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 27-43.
  63. Szulanski, G. 2003. Sticky knowledge: Barriers to knowing in the firm. London: Sage.
  64. Todorova, G. and Durisin, B. 2007. Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 774-786.
  65. Tushman M.L. 1977. Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 22: 587-605
  66. Tushman, M., and Scanlan, T. 1981. Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in informa- tion transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2): 289-305.
  67. Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W. and de Boer, M. 1999. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5): 551-568.
  68. Yeoh, P. 2009. Realized and potential absorptive capacity: Understanding their antecedents and performance in the sourcing context. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(1): 21-36.
  69. Yin, R.K. 2008. Case study research. 4 th ed. Thousand Oaks et al.: Sage.
  70. Zahra, S.A. and George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 185-203.
  71. ZEW (Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH) 2008. ZEW Branchenreport. Innovationsreport. Instrumententechnik 15(8), 1-4.

Related papers

Development of Absorptive Capacity over Time and across Boundaries: the Case of R&D consortia
Khaleel Malik

of absorptive capacity over time and across boundaries: The case of R&D consortia, Long Range Planning (2017), http://dx.

View PDFchevron_right
Absorptive and desorptive capacity of actors within university-industry relations: does technology transfer matter?
Davide Dell'Anno

2015

Several management studies highlight the importance of collaborative relationships for university-industry knowledge and technology transfer. The present study examines the role of absorptive and desorptive capacity (A/DCAP) of actors in technology transfer processes by pointing out critical elements that may affect regional innovation systems. In this field of action, each university worldwide, as well as public and private research centers, interacts differently with industry. Cultural and economic variances make it difficult to outline one single global model governing knowledge and technology transfer. However, it is possible to identify elements and characteristics that might make this system efficient. Mere interaction is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to ensure that knowledge and technology flow through a feasible dyadic channel from university to industry (U-I) or vice versa (I-U). Indeed, the actors of the process have to develop organizational capabilities at a...

View PDFchevron_right
Organisational Knowledge Creation in the Context of R & D cooperation. The role of absorptive capacity
Ioanna Kastelli
View PDFchevron_right
A Study on organisation of Technology Transfer in Research Institutions
Mauricio Gam

Research Institutions (RIs) in last decades have been involved in both production of technological applications and commercialisation of research results for the sake of technology transfer. These tasks are frequently taken as overlapping by both practitioners and theory, whereas they should be ideally separated. The present paper focus on the latter, by questioning why RIs have to be involved into commercialisation of research. Drawing on the identification of coordination needs among demand and supply of technological opportunities, evidence of five extensive case studies of Technology Transfer Organisations (TTOs) belonging to RIs is analysed, with regard to the efficiency of the process of opportunity recognition. The claim for superior efficiency of RIs in technology transfer depends, in a static perspective, on an expected superior capacity of TTOs to manage existing knowledge. However, in practice, TTOs do not always exploit available sources of efficiency gains. Implications for management of knowledge and technology transfer are discussed. JEL classification: O3; L2 occurred firstly in the UK (with the 1977 Patents Act, and later with 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act), immediately followed by the US 1980 Bayh-Dole Act and analogous measures in almost all European Countries, consisted in allocating to universities the IPRs over results of publicly-funded research, thereby assigning private incentives to universities for commercial exploitation of outputs, with the attempt to enhance diffusion of potentially valuable innovation. The second type of intervention has been put in place above all in the European countries, as a bundle of regional, national and communitarian measures, and took the form of funds made available for universities to finance technology transfer infrastructures and activities, following a model of organisation largely borrowed by the experience of US system (Nelson, 2001). 4 As a result of these policy trends (which were in some cases coupled with a shortage of public funds for research), universities have assessed permanent peripheral organisations to provide in-house services of technology scouting, IPR protection, marketing of patent and licenses, spin-off creation and sometimes finance of technological development. In other words, research institutions have started to play a role not only as developers of technological applications, but also as agents of opportunity recognition and commercialisation of new technologies, thus acting as coordinators in the market of technological opportunities. These ideally separable roles -creator of new knowledge and coordinator of supply and demand of innovation -have started to be jointly performed by research institutions, which have integrated downstream to commercialise research results. As Sampat and Nelson (1999) and Mowery and Sampat (2001) describe, although the referred policies did not have the intention to rule out the way technology transfer operations had to be organised, the research-integrated model of TTOs emerged as the outcome of a path-dependent, not-intentionally-planned process of imitation and standardisation among RIs, after the described policies went into force. Therefore, given that the current -research-integrated -US and European model of TTO is neither the spontaneous organisation of activities, nor the consciously planned solution to coordination problems, there is the need to question the rational behind it, by asking whether RIs can be efficient actors of opportunity recognition. Virtually, from the point of view of a national government seeking to overcome market failures in technology transfer, there may be a set of alternative design of ownership and control that can provide coordination between demand and supply of technological goods. After all, one thing is to ask universities and publicly-funded research to be concerned on extracting social benefits from scientific research, by producing applied pieces of technology enabling better transfer of results to industry, quite another is to say that RIs have to provide marketing services for technology transfer and become coordinators in market for innovation. Now, provided that the organisational design is not neutral to final outcome of technology transfer (Nelson and Sampat, 2001), one can reasonably question the efficiency of current design, compared to alternative organisational solutions. Moreover, this is not just a problem of market efficiency and eventually Aghion P., Horwitt P, 1998, Endogenous Growth Theory, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Agrawal A., 2001, University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions, International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4):285-302. Bray M.

View PDFchevron_right
The Determinants of Organisational Knowledge Creation in the Context of R&D Cooperation. The Role of Absorptive Capacity
Ioanna Kastelli

2006

This paper considers R&D cooperation as an organisational form that amplifies and crystallises knowledge to higher levels through interaction. It is shown that absorptive capacity is the main condition for the firm to benefit in this context. Absorptive capacity is studied in terms of its antecedents and constituent elements aiming to avoid tautological definitions and is measured not with the conventional way based on R&D expenditure but on experience and processes for acquiring, assimilating, transforming and exploiting knowledge. These processes encompass R&D and organisational practices for knowledge diffusion as well as interacting and networking activities.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Business
  • Absorptive Capacity
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved