PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to address the conflicting views on the role of bottom‐up learning; this research combines the information‐processing and organizational inertia views to explore how bottom‐up learning affects both exploratory and exploitative innovations and if the effects are contingent on organizational formalization.Design/methodology/approachData for this study are obtained through an interview survey instrument from 213 firms. The questionnaire is adopted from several previous studies on organizational learning, structure and innovation with minor translation adjust. A pilot test was conducted and necessary modifications were made to the questionnaire. Tests show that the sampling validity is not biased by non‐response bias and the measure reliability and validity are acceptable. Furthermore, Harman one‐factor and CFA tests show that the results should not be biased by common method bias. The multicollinearity is also tested and controlled during regression analysis.FindingsThe findings show that bottom‐up learning has accelerated positive effect on exploitative innovation while having an inverted U‐shaped effect on explorative innovation. Furthermore, the organizational formalization strengthens the positive effect of bottom‐up learning on exploitative innovation and the U‐shaped effect on exploratory innovation.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to organizational inertia and information‐processing theories by providing a complete picture on how firms built exploitative and exploratory innovations through bottom‐up learning aligned with appropriate organizational structure.

No abstract

No abstract

University technology transfer allows universities to extract benefits from their research. We examine how universities can create and capture value from their technology creation and technology commercialization efforts by embracing a dynamic capabilities perspective. Our longitudinal analysis involves 829 universities and 3908 university-year observations in 30 subnational regions (provinces) in China during a 6-year period. Our findings reveal (1) that universities create more ideas and capture more licensing value through dynamic management and active orchestration of assets, (2) that a developed factor market accelerates value creation and commercialization, and (3) that a developed institutional environment at the subnational level stimulates value creation but inhibits value capture. These interesting findings justify a dynamic capabilities perspective of the university technology transfer process while opening avenues for future research.

No abstract