Optimal Cognitive Distance and Absorptive Capacity.

Abstract

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers) Please check the document version of this publication:• A submitted manuscript is the author's version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. This paper tests hypotheses that in inter-firm alliances innovative performance is aninverted-U shaped function of cognitive distance, that the resulting optimal cognitive distance is higher for exploratory than for exploitative learning, and that optimal cognitive distance depends on absorptive capacity. Most hypotheses are confirmed for 994 alliances in several industries, in the period 1986-1996. The results indicate a new hypothesis that with more knowledge one needs larger cognitive distances to find novelty.

Using Affiliation Networks to Study the Determinants of Multilateral Research Cooperation: Some Empirical Evidence from EU Framework Programs in Biotechnology

“…The reason is that the members of a consortium not only increases the level of their common knowledge but also develop skills on communicating and doing research collectively. The literature on cognitive distance and related variety argues that sharing common knowledge is a pre-requisite for understanding each other and benefit from collaboration Nooteboom et al, 2007). In the same line the concept of "relative absorptive capacity" proposed by Lane and Lubatkin (1998) points out that an organisation's ability to learn changes from partner to partner.…”

The structure and evolution of inter-sectoral technological complementarity in R&D in Germany from 1990 to 2011

“…In terms of potentials for learning and innovation, resource similarity may foster local searches and the exploitation of what is already known. It thereby supports the emergence of routinized learning and the potential of significant path dependencies (Nooteboom et al, 2007). The relatedness concept allows integrating both strands -partner resource similarity and complementarity -into one powerful framework.…”

“…The reason for this is that inter-organizational learning starts, when organizations' resources are exchanged, brought together, combined, and jointly exploited (Nooteboom et al, 2007). This is precisely what is at the heart of formal R&D collaboration (Broekel and Graf, 2012).…”

“…The RBV characterizes firms by differences in their resource 3 positions. Given heterogeneous resource endowments, R&D collaborations enable firms to combine and benefit from heterogeneous resource combinations, which particularly concerns knowledge resources (Nooteboom et al, 2007).…”

Investigating the interactions among benefits of information sharing in manufacturing supply chain

“…With IS increasing the cycle time reduces. Bagchi & Skjøtt-Larsen, 2004;Lee, 2004;Min & Mentzer, 2000;Tyndall, 2000;Simatupang & Sridharan, 2004;Nooteboom & Haverbeke, 2007;Hult et al, 2004;Jayaram et al 2004;Lee, 2004;Waller, 2000;Min & Mentzer, 2000;Simatupang & Sridharan, 2004;Khan et al, 2006;Daugherty et al, 2006;Smirnova et al, 2011;Nyaga et al, 2010;Kim, 2013 11 Quick response…”