Developing supply chain open innovation capability: The mediating role of the knowledge creation process, governance mechanism and technology as a driver

Chiu, Mai-Lun; Lin, Chun‐Nan

doi:10.1016/j.jik.2022.100264

Cited by 39 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When a firm possesses sufficient knowledge, it can match effective external resources in a timely manner (Minbaeva et al, 2014) and reorganize with knowledge elements in different technical fields to explore new paths and methods to avoid environmental uncertainty risks. Moreover, a solid knowledge base reduces the disadvantages arising from the difficulty in the dissemination of tacit knowledge during the R&D process (Cavusgil et al, 2003;Chiu and Lin, 2022). When heterogeneous resources create challenges such as cognitive barriers, knowledge base helps firms integrate external resources more effectively and immediately in the R&D process (Tsai and Wang, 2009).…”

Section: Literature and Hypotheses Development 21 Technological Bound...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Firm innovation: technological boundary-spanning search and knowledge base and distance

Zhu,

Yang,

Zhang

et al. 2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTechnical knowledge is a key factor in firm innovation. This study aims to construct a theoretical framework of technological boundary-spanning search, exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation to help firms adjust their search strategies and improve the effect of external resources on internal innovation.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses questionnaires to collect data and conducts empirical analysis using SPSS25 and AMOS24.FindingsTechnological boundary-spanning search is positively correlated with ambidextrous innovation. Additionally, knowledge base positively moderates the effect of technological boundary-spanning search on ambidextrous innovation and knowledge distance negatively moderates the effect of technological boundary-spanning search on ambidextrous innovation. When a firm’s knowledge base is robust, its ambidextrous innovation can benefit more from technological boundary-spanning search. Additionally, when the knowledge distance is less, a firm’s ambidextrous innovation can benefit more from technological boundary-spanning search.Originality/valueConsidering organizational ambidexterity, this study divides firm innovation into exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation and presents a theoretical framework for the effect of technological boundary-spanning search on ambidextrous innovation. Additionally, it provides a comprehensive understanding of the crucial roles of knowledge base and knowledge distance in the relationship between technological boundary-spanning search and exploratory and exploitative innovation.

show abstract

Section: Literature and Hypotheses Development 21 Technological Bound...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Firm innovation: technological boundary-spanning search and knowledge base and distance

Zhu,

Yang,

Zhang

et al. 2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, we contextualise in this study that PBOs and/or PSFs may intend to network with outbound building product suppliers (BPSs) and/or building product manufacturers (BPMs) to leverage their coupling effect towards improving their organisational knowledge base (Ashenbaum et al, 2020;Holma et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2023). BPSs and/or BPMs possess the necessary technologies, expertise, skills, knowledge and information that can be improvised, shared/transferred, stored, learned, infused/assimilated and finally applied and re-used by other supply chain members via vigilant knowledge networks (Chiu and Lin, 2022;Papa et al, 2021;Yang and Jiang, 2023).…”

Section: Literature Review and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To achieve this intention, PBOs are constrained to ensure the presence of explicit organisational knowledge goal, vision and mission (Grant, 2013;Matsuo and Aihara, 2022;Zahra et al, 2020). Ultimately, this improves service performance of projects (Gomes et al, 2021;Vendrell-Herrero et al, 2020) and the firm's efficiency/noveltycentred business model innovation (Caseiro and Coelho, 2019;Chiu and Lin, 2022;Yang and Jiang, 2023;Yu et al, 2020). However, we contend that non-supportive organisational routines (such as KI behaviours) have the potential to constrain knowledge networks, creation, transfer and application within the organisation (Jia et al, 2022;Khaksar et al, 2023;Yu et al, 2020).…”

Section: Literature Review and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…FKG is geared to embed the organisational structure, reward systems, job design and leadership (Cao and Xiang, 2013;Yang and Jiang, 2023). It is further characterised by contractual agreements (Chiu and Lin, 2022;Gomes et al, 2021;Jia et al, 2022). Drawing on the foregoing elaboration, PI is characterised by selfreinforcement, rigid, mechanistic and bureaucratic knowledge improvisation from stagnant sources, reinforcing an organisation's learning inertia (Jia et al, 2022;Liao et al, 2008).…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…. IKG, on the other hand, is featured by relational governance involving promise-keeping, trust and informal/incidental communication flows and channels (Cheng et al, 2023;Chiu and Lin, 2022;Jia et al, 2022). Although altruistic (and/ or open innovation) knowledge networking alignment is not usually featured by binding formal agreements (Jia et al, 2022;Ozawa, 2023), recent studies emphasise on relational contract principles of trust-based collaborations (Cheng et al, 2023;€ Ortqvist, 2020).…”

Section: Informal Knowledge Governance (Ikg)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Knowledge ambidexterity in construction project-based organizations: predicaments of knowledge networking intention within outbound consultant-supplier interfaces

Lello,

Huang,

Kansheba

2024

IJMPB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAgenda for knowledge creation within inter-project alliances and inter-firm supply chain networks has been extensively debated. However, the existing knowledge networks within consultant-supplier interfaces in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry seem to be vague, loose, incidental and insignificant. This study examines factors affecting knowledge networking intention (KNI) within construction service supply chain (CSSC) networks.Design/methodology/approachData analysis was conducted on a quantitative survey of 161 consulting professional service firms in Tanzania, employing stepwise regression modelling as the statistical technique.FindingsThe results indicate that three types of knowledge inertia (KI) exert varying effects on KNI. While both procedural (PI) and learning inertia (LI) negatively impact KNI, experience inertia (EI) has no impact on KNI. In addition, knowledge governance (KG) mechanisms are found to strongly strengthen and leverage the negative effects of PI and LI on KNI and the positive link between EI and KNI within outbound and heterogeneous CSSC actors, with formal KG having greater leverage than informal KG.Practical implicationsThe study offers guidance on how managers of PBOs should strategically orchestrate knowledge governance mechanisms within CSSC networks to leverage KI behaviours.Originality/valueCurrent literature on KNI, KI and KG within CSSC networks offers a limited understanding of how KI behaviours influence KNI of project-based organizations (PBOs) in tapping vibrant outbound peripheral knowledge. The research presents two major original contributions. First, the empirical evidence contributes to deepening the current understanding of how heterogeneous external knowledge within consultant-supplier interactions is negatively influenced by KI. Lastly, the study suggests formal and informal knowledge governance strategies for managers on how to counteract KI forces, thus extending the theoretical debate on KNI, KI and KG literature.

show abstract

A bane or a boon? impacts of IoT cyber-defense improvement in e-commerce channel

Cui,

Du,

Zhao

et al. 2024

Oper Manag Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing supply chain open innovation capability: The mediating role of the knowledge creation process, governance mechanism and technology as a driver

Cited by 39 publications

References 89 publications

Firm innovation: technological boundary-spanning search and knowledge base and distance

Firm innovation: technological boundary-spanning search and knowledge base and distance

Knowledge ambidexterity in construction project-based organizations: predicaments of knowledge networking intention within outbound consultant-supplier interfaces

A bane or a boon? impacts of IoT cyber-defense improvement in e-commerce channel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About