Absorptive capacity in European manufacturing: a Delphi study

Abstract

PurposeThis paper sets out to discuss the results of a specific part of a Europe‐wide Delphi study that considers issues of absorptive capacity in European manufacturing. Owing to the importance to competitiveness of increasing innovative capabilities in manufacturing it is highly relevant to explore how a wide community of manufacturing experts experience the phenomenon of absorptive capacity and sense future developments.Design/methodology/approachA two round Delphi method was designed in which more than 3,000 experts from 22 European countries assessed 101 statements. This paper discusses eight statements focused on the issue of absorptive capacity.FindingsThe results show a general consensus about the influence of different inter‐firm relationships in acquiring external knowledge and a diversified knowledge structure for assimilating the acquired knowledge. The study also indicates some potential challenges and contradictions in managing inter‐firm relationships and knowledge diversity as well as perceived barriers for future developments of absorptive capacity.Research limitations/implicationsDelphi survey is an empirical method subject to the limitation of testing or inductively building theoretical concepts.Practical implicationsThe results of the Delphi study are predominantly centred on policy implication and on informing strategic decision‐making at manufacturing firms.Originality/valueThis paper discusses one of the biggest Delphi surveys ever conducted in Europe. Its comprehensiveness increases the value of the results.

Quantifying the development of agreement among experts in Delphi studies

“…According to Keeney et al [7] there exists no guidance on the minimum or maximum number of experts to be included in a Delphi study. As such, the number of experts in a Delphi study can range from as few as 6 experts [26] to as many as 3000 experts [55]. However, Delphi studies that include such many experts are the exceptions.…”

Moving best practice forward: Delphi characteristics, advantages, potential problems, and solutions

“…Concomitantly, true debate is encouraged and equal weight afforded each participant's response (Needham and de Loë, 1990;Gordon, 1994). Gordon (1994), Wright (1999), andJung-Erceg et al (2007) identify a set of Delphi attributes. They are:…”

“…In the latter case, Turoff (1970: 153) suggests 'anywhere from ten to fi fty people', while most studies use panels of 15 to 35 individuals (Gordon, 1994;Rowe and Wright, 1999;Miller, 2001b). The literature contains examples and suggestions for panels comprised of hundreds (Mullen, 2003) to thousands of participants (Linstone, 1978;Cantrill et al, 1996;Jung-Erceg et al, 2007). A scan of the tourism literature reveals published studies with Delphi panel sizes in the following ranges: twenty or less (Lloyd et al, 2000;Weber and Ladkin, 2003;Kuo and Chiu, 2006;Tsaur et al, 2006;), 20 to 50 (Liu, 1988;Yeong et al, 1989;Green et al, 1990aGreen et al, , 1990bO'Connor and Frew, 2004;Choi and Sirakaya, 2006), 50 to 70 (Miller, 2001b;Briedenhann and Butts, 2006;Kaynak and Marandu, 2006), 70 to 100 (Kaynak and Macauley, 1985;Spenceley, 2003); and 100 or more (Kaynak et al, 1994).…”

Goleman-Boyatzis Model of Emotional Intelligence for Dealing with Problems in Project Management

“…The characteristics of a typical Delphi study have been described by several authors (Gordon, 1994;Jung-Erceg et al, 2007;Keeney, Hasson and McKenna, 2011;Rowe and Wright, 1999).…”