IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v92-93y2020is016649721730398x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collaborative modes with Cultural and Creative Industries and innovation performance: The moderating role of heterogeneous sources of knowledge and absorptive capacity

Author

Listed:
  • Santoro, Gabriele
  • Bresciani, Stefano
  • Papa, Armando

Abstract

Organizations can no longer be isolated entities in the current dynamic competitive environment but tend to establish alliances and networks with external parties. Recently, research has suggested that organizations develop collaborative modes with Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs) to acquire and combine Heterogeneous Sources of Knowledge (HSK) within their organizational environment. Innovation thus becomes increasingly generated by a cross-process involving a diverse set of industries. Nevertheless, few studies have assessed how knowledge from distant industries, such as CCIs, can affect firms’ innovation performance. Accordingly, this empirical research on a sample of 187 firms evaluates whether formal and informal collaboration modes with CCIs affect innovation performance. Moreover, it assesses the moderating role of both HSK and absorptive capacity. In particular, it aims to answer the following questions. What are the effects of collaboration modes with CCIs on firms’ innovation performance? What are the differences (in terms of effects) between Formal Collaboration Modes (FCMs) and Informal Collaboration Modes (ICMs) with CCIs on firms’ innovation performance? Do heterogeneity of knowledge sources and absorptive capacity increase the possibility of benefiting from FCMs and ICMs with CCIs in terms of innovation performance? The results contribute to the theory indicating that HSK are important to benefit from knowledge from CCIs, while absorptive capacity does not fulfil the same role.

Suggested Citation

  • Santoro, Gabriele & Bresciani, Stefano & Papa, Armando, 2020. "Collaborative modes with Cultural and Creative Industries and innovation performance: The moderating role of heterogeneous sources of knowledge and absorptive capacity," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 92.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:92-93:y:2020:i::s016649721730398x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.06.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016649721730398X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.06.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    2. Wuyts, Stefan & Colombo, Massimo G. & Dutta, Shantanu & Nooteboom, Bart, 2005. "Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 277-302, October.
    3. Jon M. Hawes & William F. Crittenden, 1984. "A taxonomy of competitive retailing strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(3), pages 275-287, July.
    4. Mina, Andrea & Bascavusoglu-Moreau, Elif & Hughes, Alan, 2014. "Open service innovation and the firm's search for external knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 853-866.
    5. Mowery, David C. & Oxley, Joanne E. & Silverman, Brian S., 1998. "Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 507-523, September.
    6. Arora, Ashish & Athreye, Suma & Huang, Can, 2016. "The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1352-1361.
    7. Crescenzi, Riccardo & Nathan, Max & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2016. "Do inventors talk to strangers? On proximity and collaborative knowledge creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 177-194.
    8. Joel A. C. Baum & Tony Calabrese & Brian S. Silverman, 2000. "Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 267-294, March.
    9. Paul Almeida & Bruce Kogut, 1999. "Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(7), pages 905-917, July.
    10. Hüseyin Tanriverdi & N. Venkatraman, 2005. "Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 97-119, February.
    11. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    12. Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Eckhard Lichtenthaler, 2009. "A Capability‐Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 1315-1338, December.
    13. Joel West & Karim Lakhani, 2008. "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 223-231.
    14. Cassiman, Bruno & Colombo, Massimo G. & Garrone, Paola & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The impact of M&A on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role of technological- and market-relatedness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 195-220, March.
    15. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    16. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    17. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & van den Oord, Ad, 2008. "Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1717-1731, December.
    18. Chetty, Sylvie K. & Wilson, Heather I. M., 2003. "Collaborating with competitors to acquire resources," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 61-81, February.
    19. Gautam Ahuja, 2000. "The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 317-343, March.
    20. Albert N. Link & Donald S. Siegel & Barry Bozeman, 2007. "An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(4), pages 641-655, August.
    21. Gabriele Santoro, 2017. "Innovation in small and medium enterprises: the impact of open innovation practices on firm's performance," Global Business and Economics Review, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 19(5), pages 508-520.
    22. Becker, Wolfgang & Dietz, Jurgen, 2004. "R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms--evidence for the German manufacturing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 209-223, March.
    23. Shane, Scott, 1993. "Cultural influences on national rates of innovation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 59-73, January.
    24. Ann Majchrzak & Lynne P. Cooper & Olivia E. Neece, 2004. "Knowledge Reuse for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 174-188, February.
    25. Bresciani, Stefano & Ferraris, Alberto & Del Giudice, Manlio, 2018. "The management of organizational ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 331-338.
    26. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    27. John Hagedoorn & Jos Schakenraad, 1994. "The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 291-309, May.
    28. Maurizio Zollo & Jeffrey J. Reuer & Harbir Singh, 2002. "Interorganizational Routines and Performance in Strategic Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(6), pages 701-713, December.
    29. Elena Huergo & Jordi Jaumandreu, 2004. "How Does Probability of Innovation Change with Firm Age?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3_4), pages 193-207, April.
    30. Adam Brandenburger & Natalya Vinokurova, 2012. "Comment on “Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 286-287, February.
    31. Schulze, Anja & Hoegl, Martin, 2008. "Organizational knowledge creation and the generation of new product ideas: A behavioral approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1742-1750, December.
    32. Berchicci, Luca, 2013. "Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 117-127.
    33. Joan Penner‐Hahn & J. Myles Shaver, 2005. "Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 121-140, February.
    34. Gabriele Santoro & Alberto Ferraris & Elisa Giacosa & Guido Giovando, 2018. "How SMEs Engage in Open Innovation: a Survey," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(2), pages 561-574, June.
    35. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2006. "In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R& D and External Knowledge Acquisition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 68-82, January.
    36. Manlio Del Giudice & Elias G. Carayannis & Maria Rosaria Della Peruta, 2012. "Cross-Cultural Knowledge Management," Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, Springer, number 978-1-4614-2089-7, December.
    37. Brian T. McCann & Jeffrey J. Reuer & Nandini Lahiri, 2016. "Agglomeration and the choice between acquisitions and alliances: An information economics perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 1085-1106, June.
    38. Kato, Masatoshi & Zhou, Haibo, 2018. "Numerical labor flexibility and innovation outcomes of start-up firms: A panel data analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 15-27.
    39. Cornelius Herstatt & Katharina Kalogerakis, 2005. "How To Use Analogies For Breakthrough Innovations," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(03), pages 331-347.
    40. Ha Hoang & Frank T. Rothaermel, 2010. "Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 734-758, July.
    41. André Spithoven & Wim Vanhaverbeke & Nadine Roijakkers, 2013. "Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 537-562, October.
    42. Robert D. Dewar & Jane E. Dutton, 1986. "The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1422-1433, November.
    43. Jeffrey J. Reuer & Mitchell P. Koza, 2000. "Asymmetric information and joint venture performance: theory and evidence for domestic and international joint ventures," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 81-88, January.
    44. Fleming, Lee & Sorenson, Olav, 2001. "Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1019-1039, August.
    45. Demetris Vrontis & Alkis Thrassou & Gabriele Santoro & Armando Papa, 2017. "Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 374-388, April.
    46. Manlio Giudice & Elias G. Carayannis & Maria Rosaria Della Peruta, 2012. "Culture and Cooperative Strategies: Knowledge Management Perspectives," Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, in: Cross-Cultural Knowledge Management, chapter 0, pages 49-62, Springer.
    47. Marcel Bogers & Ann-Kristin Zobel & Allan Afuah & Esteve Almirall & Sabine Brunswicker & Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Annabelle Gawer & Marc Gruber & Stefan Haefliger & John Hagedoorn & Dennis, 2017. "The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 8-40, January.
    48. Shane, Scott A., 1992. "Why do some societies invent more than others?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 29-46, January.
    49. Mats Forsgren & Torben Pedersen, 1998. "Centres of Excellence in Multinational Companies: The Case of Denmark," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Julian Birkinshaw & Neil Hood (ed.), Multinational Corporate Evolution and Subsidiary Development, chapter 6, pages 141-161, Palgrave Macmillan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    2. Li, Zhengyu, 2016. "Essays on knowledge sourcing and technological capability : A knowledge structure perspective," Other publications TiSEM b8ff31fc-c57b-4bc3-b5a4-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Santoro, Gabriele & Quaglia, Roberto & Pellicelli, Anna Claudia & De Bernardi, Paola, 2020. "The interplay among entrepreneur, employees, and firm level factors in explaining SMEs openness: A qualitative micro-foundational approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    5. Alexandra Rese & Anke Kutschke & Daniel Baier, 2016. "Analyzing The Relative Influence Of Supply Side, Demand Side And Regulatory Factors On The Success Of Collaborative Energy Innovation Projects," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-43, February.
    6. Kavusan, Korcan & Noorderhaven, Niels G. & Duysters, Geert M., 2016. "Knowledge acquisition and complementary specialization in alliances: The impact of technological overlap and alliance experience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2153-2165.
    7. Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2019. "Trading knowledge for status: Conceptualizing R&D alliance formation to achieve ambidexterity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 36-42.
    8. Hohberger, Jan & Kruger, Heidi & Almeida, Paul, 2020. "Does separation hurt? The impact of premature termination of R&D alliances on knowledge acquisition and innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    9. Forés, Beatriz & Camisón, César, 2016. "Does incremental and radical innovation performance depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational size?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 831-848.
    10. Lopes, Ana Paula Vilas Boas Viveiros & de Carvalho, Marly Monteiro, 2018. "Evolution of the open innovation paradigm: Towards a contingent conceptual model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 284-298.
    11. Santoro, Gabriele & Mazzoleni, Alberto & Quaglia, Roberto & Solima, Ludovico, 2021. "Does age matter? The impact of SMEs age on the relationship between knowledge sourcing strategy and internationalization," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 779-787.
    12. Ferraris, Alberto & Devalle, Alain & Ciampi, Francesco & Couturier, Jerome, 2019. "Are global R&D partnerships enough to increase a company's innovation performance? The role of search and integrative capacities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    13. Kwangsoo Shin & Sang Ji Kim & Gunno Park, 2016. "How does the partner type in R&D alliances impact technological innovation performance? A study on the Korean biotechnology industry," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 141-164, March.
    14. Peeters, T.J.G., 2013. "External knowledge search and use in new product development," Other publications TiSEM 300ebb34-b090-4210-b95e-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Tom Broekel & Matthias Brachert, 2015. "The structure and evolution of inter-sectoral technological complementarity in R&D in Germany from 1990 to 2011," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 755-785, September.
    16. Radziwon, Agnieszka & Bogers, Marcel, 2019. "Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 573-587.
    17. Jacob, Jojo & Belderbos, René & Lokshin, Boris, 2023. "Entangled modes: Boundaries to effective international knowledge sourcing through technology alliances and technology-based acquisitions," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    18. Bart Nooteboom, 2012. "Embodied Cognition, Organization and Innovation," Chapters, in: Richard Arena & Agnès Festré & Nathalie Lazaric (ed.), Handbook of Knowledge and Economics, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & van den Oord, Ad, 2008. "Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1717-1731, December.
    20. Christian Omobhude & Shih-Hsin Chen, 2019. "The Roles and Measurements of Proximity in Sustained Technology Development: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-30, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:92-93:y:2020:i::s016649721730398x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.