Absorptive Capacity and Ambidexterity in R&D: Linking Technology Alliance Diversity and Firm Innovation

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine how firms realize the benefits associated with a diverse range of technology alliances. We propose and test the hypothesis that firms’ knowledge combinative capabilities mediate the relationship between technology alliance diversity and innovation. Using panel data for Spanish manufacturing companies during the period 2004–2011, we provide evidence that firms’ absorptive capacity and ambidexterity in R&D serve as mediating mechanisms between technology alliance diversity and innovative performance. Our study advances the literature on technology alliances by showing how firms use their portfolios of technology alliances to form their combinative capabilities, and subsequently, to enhance innovation outcomes.

Determinants of Innovation Cooperation Performance: What Do We Know and What Should We Know?

“…Further research supports that knowledge creation by partners mediates the effect of knowledge acquisition on innovative performance and that international alliances strengthen the effect of knowledge creation on innovative performance [53]. Lucena & Roper [54] find that a firm's absorptive capacity and ambidexterity in R&D mediate the relationship between technology alliance diversity and innovation. Further, with regard to experience, it has been found that the general alliance experience of biotechnology partners, but not of pharmaceutical firms, positively affects joint project performance [55].…”

Organisational Ambidexterity in the UK Financial Services: A Corporate Level Perspective

“…Having navigated through the career path development and stayed for a long time within their companies, these managers had also been exposed to top-down/bottom-up flows of knowledge which facilitated ambidexterity enactment (Mom et al, 2009). Their explorative capabilities supporting new product/service development such as customer orientation capability (Ngo and O'Cass, 2012), combined with external relational capabilities, that is, partnerships with consultants (Rusanen et al, 2014;Lucena and Roper, 2016) provided additional knowledge support and resources for exploration. Their explorative capabilities supporting new product/service development such as customer orientation capability (Ngo and O'Cass, 2012), combined with external relational capabilities, that is, partnerships with consultants (Rusanen et al, 2014;Lucena and Roper, 2016) provided additional knowledge support and resources for exploration.…”

“…In this way, they made firms more capable of initiating various reconfigurations of resources and knowledge in the pursuits of new products/services. Their explorative capabilities supporting new product/service development such as customer orientation capability (Ngo and O'Cass, 2012), combined with external relational capabilities, that is, partnerships with consultants (Rusanen et al, 2014;Lucena and Roper, 2016) provided additional knowledge support and resources for exploration. Such exploration efforts can enhance the effects of exploitative capabilities, namely, cost efficiencies, because, through internalisation of external knowledge, exploitative capabilities in terms of efficient routines and processes can be applied on a greater scale of acquired competences (Cao et al, 2009).…”

“…This has implications on the OA-performance relationship with inherent empirical results that are difficult to compare across studies (He and Wong, 2004;Lubatkin et al, 2006). Fourth, most empirical investigations are quantitative (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004;Lubatkin et al, 2006;Lucena and Roper, 2016;Cegarra-Navarro, 2018); more qualitative studies (Jansen et al, 2006;Junni et al, 2013) are needed to understand how exploitation and exploration efforts are initiated at different levels to better support management decisions. The moderating effects by the environment are mostly neglected in organisational-centric studies, thus undermining the reliability of the OA-performance relationship and management decisions.…”

“…Such gaps that concretise in the omission of additional yet relevant variables from the OA-performance relationship limit understanding of the OA phenomenon. Fourth, most empirical investigations are quantitative (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004;Lubatkin et al, 2006;Lucena and Roper, 2016;Cegarra-Navarro, 2018); more qualitative studies (Jansen et al, 2006;Junni et al, 2013) are needed to understand how exploitation and exploration efforts are initiated at different levels to better support management decisions. Particularly, corporate level efforts are not captured in existing studies.…”