Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
THESIS
FINAL
Innovative ambidexterity in small and medium-sized firms:
The role of external networks and absorptive capacity.
Faculty of Economics and Business
Executive Programme in Management Studies
Strategy Track
Supervisor: Dr. Dipl.-Wirt.-Ing. S. Kortmann
September 2014 – March 2015
29 March 2015
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Bjorn Borgers who declares to take full responsibility for
the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources
other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of
completion of the work, not for the contents.
Signature ______________________________________
3
Table of content Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
2. Literature overview ................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Innovative Ambidexterity ................................................................................................. 9
2.2 External Networks .......................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Absorptive capacity ........................................................................................................ 15
3. Theoretical framework ......................................................................................................... 17
3.1 External networks and Innovative Ambidexterity .......................................................... 17
3.2 Absorptive Capacity, External Networks and Innovative Ambidexterity ...................... 18
3.3 Firm size ......................................................................................................................... 20
4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 22
4.1 Data collection and sample ............................................................................................. 22
4.2 Measures ......................................................................................................................... 22
4.2.1 Dependent variable: Innovative ambidexterity ........................................................ 23
4.2.2 Independent variable: Absorptive capacity .............................................................. 23
4.2.3 Independent variable: External Networks ................................................................ 24
4.2.4 Control variables ...................................................................................................... 25
5. Data analyses and Results .................................................................................................... 26
5.1 Data analyses .................................................................................................................. 26
5.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 27
6. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 33
6.2 Limitations and future research ...................................................................................... 36
6.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 37
References ................................................................................................................................ 38
Appendix. Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 46
Appendix. Descriptives Firm’s Industry and Age .................................................................... 47
Appendix. Reliability measures ............................................................................................... 48
Appendix: Moderation Mediation Analyses ............................................................................ 51
4
Abstract
Collaboration in external networks play a significant role for SME and large firms to
become innovative ambidextrous. In addition the level of absorptive capacity of a firm plays a
significant positive mediation role in this relationship. Research under 178 firms in The
Netherlands confirms the need for firms to collaborate in external networks to become
innovative ambidextrous. This research extends our understanding of the dynamic capabilities
view by using the network theory and the open innovation concept to explain the role of
external networking and absorptive capacity as antecedents to become innovative
ambidextrous. Findings show that differences between SME and large firms are present
although firm size as a whole does not play a significant moderating role. Results show that
large firms are more involved in external networking than SME firms which lead to a better
balance in innovative ambidexterity. This is in contrast to what was expected, since SME are
proposed to collaborate in networks to overcome their lack of resources and information to
innovate. Furthermore, collaboration with clients and suppliers are part of SME networking
activities, but collaborations with universities, governmental organizations and research
institutes is still limited. While this leads to a better balance in exploitation and exploration of
knowledge and to not only incremental innovations but also more radical innovations. This
research suggests that SME firms can profit more from external knowledge by considering
external networking as a dynamic capability to create a sustainable competitive advantage.
Key words: innovative ambidexterity, external networks, absorptive capacity, SME.
5
1. Introduction
"It is the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to
collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed." - Charles Darwin
In a decade where knowledge and technology evolve at an enormous speed firms are,
to survive, forced adapt quicker than before. This means a constant focus and renewal of
firm’s routines and capabilities which in return lead to bigger constraint in resources. The
ability to value new external information and apply it commercially, in order words,
absorptive capacity is an important factor to acquire and adopt new knowledge. The ability to
acquiring and implement new knowledge play a distinguished role in innovation management.
Without a level absorptive capacity firms are hardly able to innovate, on the other hand firms
can benefit from external networks to adopt new knowledge. For firms to access new
knowledge, collaboration in external networks and absorptive capacity are essential dynamic
capabilities and routines to be managed continuously (Teece, Pisano et al. 1997, Eisenhardt,
Martin 2000, Teece 2007). By collaborating in an external network firms are able to
overcome the resources constraints. External networking improves the innovative
ambidexterity of firms because it give firms the opportunity to not only interact with
customers and suppliers for incremental innovations but moreover to collaborate with
knowledge institutes and universities for more radical innovations. Studies into innovation
management hold that successful firms are effective at exploiting existing competencies to
create gradually improved exploitative innovations while at the same time successfully
exploring new competencies and technologies to create explorative breakthrough innovations
(Levinthal, March 1993, Gibson, Birkinshaw 2004, He, Wong 2004).
Despite this general consensus firms still face challenges how to deal with this
continuous renewal. One of the challenges is the pressure on the organizations resources, in
particular small and medium size firms (Lubatkin, Simsek et al. 2006). In the firms´ search for
efficient knowledge transfer and acquisition, and knowledge collaboration in external
networks is an unmistakable dynamic capability which still deserve academic as well as
management attention. Firms traditionally build on knowledge within the firm developed by
their R&D department. Competition between firms and industries force them to look beyond
their own knowledge base and into collaborations outside the firm. Based on the resource
6
based view (Wernerfelt 1984, Barney 1986, Peteraf 1993) and the knowledge based view
(Kogut, Zander 1992, Grant 1996), knowledge is an important factor in having a competitive
advantages. Integrating this new knowledge into the existing knowledge base of a firm, has
become part of competitive advantage in today’s business environment. Large firms have the
ability integrate new knowledge more easily in the firm than small and medium size firms
(SMEs). SMEs have limited resources and R&D capacity so it becomes evident that SMEs
have stronger need to search for knowledge and collaboration outside of the firm.
Collaboration with not only clients and suppliers, but moreover competition, universities and
knowledge institutes.
This thesis contributes first and foremost to the research on dynamic capabilities
(Elsenhardt, Martin 2000) and the network theory (Håkansson 1987) by further exploring the
role of external networks and absorptive capacity on innovative ambidexterity. In the context
of acquiring knowledge resources, absorptive capacity as critical dynamic capability receives
a renewed attention (Spithoven, Clarysse et al. 2011). Empirical research on SMEs and in
more traditional industries on this subject is still limited (Spithoven, Clarysse et al. 2011).
This thesis also respond to the call of Lichtenthaler (Lichtenthaler 2011) for more research on
open innovation by further exploring the balance in inbound open innovation and outbound
open innovation. The research on innovation ambidexterity is mostly focused on antecedents
within the firm, i.e. dual structures, organizational context, and TMT characteristics (Simsek
2009). In the dynamic environments where firms collaborate beyond their boundaries,
empirical attention on antecedents outside the firm is receiving more attention. Especially
because firms and organizations are embedded in the structure of their network relations that
constrain and enable their behaviour and economic action (Simsek 2009). With this thesis
empirically evidence is provided that network collaboration is an antecedent for both
exploitation and exploration (Powell, Koput et al. 1996, Simsek 2009). Finally, the conceptual
model of this thesis is proposed by Datta to explain commercialization of innovations (Datta
2011). This thesis provides empirical evidence for this model, in addition firms’ size taking as
a moderator to highlight the differences between SME and large firms. The research question
of this thesis is as follows:
Are SME firms different in benefiting from external knowledge in sense of innovative
ambidexterity? How external networks and absorptive capacity will have effect on innovative
ambidexterity?
7
The empirical evidence is provided through data from an online survey under SME
and large firms of different industries in the Netherlands. The data consists of 173 completed
questionnaires. The hypothesized relations between external networking, absorptive capacity
and innovative ambidexterity are tested. Furthermore the moderating effect of firm size is
explored to identify if small and medium size firms (SMEs) are different in benefiting from
collaboration in external networks and knowledge than large firms.
The remainder of this thesis is structured as follows. First the literature review will go
into position of the research model in the existing literature. Then the concepts and
relationship between innovative ambidexterity, absorptive capacity and external networks is
discussed as separate constructs as well as the proposed interactions. This leads to the
conceptual model and hypothesises of the proposed relations between the constructs. In the
model firm size is taken as the mediator to go in to differences between SME and large firms.
The research is done by sending out a questionnaire to 1.320 Dutch firms. The collected data
is analysed followed by discussion of the results. Finally the managerial implications,
limitations and directions for future research are given as well as an overall conclusion.
8
2. Literature overview
The explanation of sustainable competitive advantage starts in the present strategy
literature with external orientation of the firm, based on the premises of the industrial
organization and the Structure-Conduct-Performance model (Porter , Bain 1968). Porter
(Porter )) presented the five force model to explain the importance of analysing the industry
competition and attractiveness. Later as a reaction on the outside in view the resource based
view (Penrose 1959, Barney 1991, Wernerfelt 1984) set the focus on internal resources and
capabilities. The resource based view has been acknowledged as complementary to the
industrial organization view (Barney 2001, Peteraf, Barney 2003). Traditional RBV research
state that resources need to be controlled by the firm, in order to receive sustainable
competitive advantage. The relational view complements the RBV by arguing that critical
resources may span firm boundaries (Dyer, Singh 1998). Firms benefit in alliances and
networks because these interfirm linkages give access to partner resources (Gulati 1995). A
network strategy can overcome the limitation of the RBV (Gulati 1998) and network
resources are difficult to imitate and therefore can provide a basis for sustainable competitive
advantage (Gulati 1999). Complementary to RBV and the relational view, the social network
view (Wasserman 1994) provide insides of how network structure and partner characteristics
can complement the firms’ resources (Arya, Lin 2007).
One of the critics of the conventional RBV is that it is static and it does not adequately
explain how and why certain firms have competitive advantage in situations of rapid and
unpredictable change (Teece, Pisano et al. 1997, Eisenhardt, Martin 2000). In order to
respond to limited static view of the RBV, scholars have extended the RBV to dynamic
markets (Teece, Pisano et al. 1997). The dynamics refer to the continuously changing markets
and the necessity to adopt and orchestrate the firms resources accordingly (Teece 2007) The
Dynamic capabilities view emphasis on the ability of sensing, seizing and reconfiguring
resources. Successful firms need to build and utilize all three (Teece 2007). A capability is
“the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies”
((Teece, Pisano et al. 1997), p. 517). Firms that possess strong capabilities have the strength
to reconfigure their resources. Grimaldi (Grimaldi, Quinto et al. 2013) linked the dynamic
capabilities to Open Innovation (Chesbrough 2003) and argued that firms with strong sensing,
seizing and reconfiguring capabilities are more prepared to develop open innovation
9
approaches (Grimaldi, Quinto et al. 2013). Open innovation is defined as ‘the use of
purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and to expand
the markets for external use of innovation, respectively.’ (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke et al.
2006). Open innovation approach combines the inside out and the outside in processes which
leads to collaborations in different forms linked through a network. Studies on open
innovation in SMEs (Van de Vrande, De Jong et al. 2009) show that SMEs are more involved
in open innovation due to increasingly important role of SMEs in innovation and the limited
resources which force SMEs to collaborate in external networks.
Lichtenthaler (Lichtenthaler 2011) calls for more research on open innovation to
further explore the balance in inbound open innovation and outbound open innovation.
Inbound open innovation is an outside-in process and involves opening up the innovation
process to knowledge exploration. Lichtenthaler refers external knowledge exploration to the
acquisition of knowledge from external sources (Lichtenthaler, Lichtenthaler 2009). And in
contrast, outbound open innovation is an inside-out process and includes opening up the
innovation process to knowledge exploitation. External knowledge exploitation relates to the
commercialization of technological knowledge. Lichtentaler suggest combining these internal
and external knowledge processes as new form for ambidexterity. (Lichtenthaler,
Lichtenthaler 2009).
Above literature background positions this thesis in the dynamic capabilities view with
an emphasis on the management of knowledge. In the open innovation era the dynamic
capabilities ambidexterity, absorptive capacity and external networking are part of this
knowledge management process.
2.1 Innovative Ambidexterity
The locus on renewal lays on incremental innovation as well more breakthrough
innovations. Incremental innovations are often a result of exploitation in the firm and the
more breakthrough innovations come from exploration (Tushman, O’Reilly III 2006). A firm
continuously needs to seek balance their exploitation and exploration innovation activities. In
the last decade academic research evolved the ambidexterity concept as way for firms to
pursue long-term success. In the literature there is a broad discussion how to deal with this
10
ambidexterity phenomenon. From organizational ambidexterity theory where forms of
organizational separation is proposed to contextual ambidexterity where behavioural and
social means of integrating exploitation and exploration is suggested. Ambidexterity was first
mentioned by Duncan (Duncan 1976), he argued that for long-term success firms needed to
consider dual structures. Structures to initiate and structures to execute innovation. In his
view, ambidexterity occurs sequentially as organizations switch structures as innovations
develop (Duncan 1976). Firms adjust their structures by the phase of the innovation process:
organic structures to explore followed by mechanistic structures to exploit. The research on
ambidexterity received more attention with the article by March, arguing that organizations
need to be aligned to both exploitation and exploration (March 1991). Firms that fails to
achieve this balance risk falling into a downward spiral of mediocrity (March 1991). Firms
need to achieve a balance between exploitative and explorative to achieve superior
performance (Burgelman 1991, Tushman, Reilly et al. 1996, Volberda 1996, Eisenhardt,
Martin 2000). A focus on exploitation may improve short-term performance, however it can
result in a competency trap because firms may not be able to respond adequately to
environmental changes (Ahuja, Morris Lampert 2001). In reverse, only a focus on exploration
may improve an organization´s ability to renew its knowledge base but can trap firms in a
continuously search for innovation without rewards. (Volberda, Lewin 2003). As competition
intensifies and technological renewal accelerates a simultaneous pursuit of both opposing
strategies are increasingly important (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al. 2005).
The two approaches exploitation and exploration represent a fundamentally different
process (He, Wong 2004). Exploitative activities are characterized by efficiency, refinement,
routinization, incremental innovation and tightly coupled systems and exploitative activities
are characterized by discovery, experimentation, search, risk taking, radical innovation and
loosely coupled systems (He, Wong 2004, Gibson, Birkinshaw 2004). Ambidexterity requires
an alignment of competencies, structures and cultures to engage in exploration, a contrasting
alignment focused on exploitation, and a senior leadership team with the cognitive and
behavioural flexibility to establish and nurture both (O’Reilly III, Tushman 2008). Therefore
balancing exploitation and exploration in a firm is such a complex task. The challenge for
firm is to manage this dynamic capability (Eisenhardt, Martin 2000, O’Reilly III, Tushman
2008, Teece 2007). It implies the ‘routines and processes by which organizations mobilize,
coordinate and integrate dispersed exploratory and exploitative efforts and allocate, reallocate,
combine and recombine resources and assets across differentiated units’ (Jansen, Tempelaar
11
et al. 2009). Ambidexterity only becomes a dynamic capability if the firm’s exploitation and
exploration activities are strategically integrated (O’Reilly III, Tushman 2008). Ambidextrous
firms are capable of simultaneous, yet contradictory, knowledge management processes,
exploiting current competencies and exploring new domains with equal dexterity (Lubatkin,
Simsek et al. 2006).
Theories of architectural ambidexterity propose dual structures and strategies,
differentiating efforts to focus on either exploitative or exploratory innovation (Gupta, Smith
et al. 2006). In recent years the concept of organizational ambidexterity has gained
momentum in research on organizations (Raisch, Birkinshaw et al. 2009). Organizational
ambidexterity signifies a firm’s ability to manage these tensions (Duncan 1976), defined as an
organization’s ability to be aligned and efficient in its management of today’s business
demands while simultaneously being adaptive to changes in the environment (Raisch,
Birkinshaw 2008). Although organizational ambidexterity gained increasingly interest in
academic research there is still ambiguity about the concept. Related research suggests
multiple paths to ambidexterity (Kortmann 2012, Raisch, Birkinshaw et al. 2009, Simsek
2009). Several scholars have argued that the level of dynamism and competitiveness in a
business environment may be an important boundary condition for organizational
ambidexterity (Gibson, Birkinshaw 2004, Levinthal, March 1993, Siggelkow, Levinthal 2003,
Volberda 1998).Whereas the initial attention to achieve ambidexterity is by spatially
separating the activities into distinct organizational units (Gupta, Smith et al. 2006) is
extended to contextual antecedents. Contextual ambidexterity, emphasizes behavioural and
social means of integrating exploitation and exploration (Gibson, Birkinshaw 2004).
The further advancement of the theory of organizational and contextual ambidexterity
shows evidence that both types are complementary and not alternative pathways to
ambidexterity (Raisch, Birkinshaw et al. 2009). Although there is broad consensus about the
relation of ambidexterity with firm performance (Jansen, Tempelaar et al. 2009,
Andriopoulos, Lewis 2009) there is still a research debate going on in the way different
antecedents which play a role. Also the differences between large firm and SMEs are part of
this research effort. There are differences in the innovation strategies of SMEs and large firms
due to their different response and sensibility to external environment pressure (Dean, Brown
et al. 1998). Prior studies found that SMEs tend to use different types innovation
ambidexterity compared to larger firms (Cao, Gedajlovic et al. 2009, Ebben, Johnson 2005).
12
SMEs differ from larger firms regarding available resources such as human resources capital
and financial capital (Cooper, Gimeno-Gascon et al. 1994, Forbes, Milliken 1999). Moreover,
SMEs may pursue different innovation strategies from larger firms due to the fact that SMEs
have restricted managerial expertise (Pissarides 1999, Forbes, Milliken 1999) as a result of
different internal and external environments (Ebben, Johnson 2005). The larger part of
academic research has however, focus on large and multiunit firms, emphasising the
overwhelming importance of simultaneously or sequentially pursuing explorative and
exploitative innovations (Tushman, Reilly et al. 1996, Gibson, Birkinshaw 2004, Birkinshaw,
Gibson 2004, Raisch, Birkinshaw 2008, Jansen, Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al. 2005, Jansen,
Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al. 2006). Research on SMEs (Cao, Gedajlovic et al. 2009, Van
de Vrande, De Jong et al. 2009) found that SMEs as relatively resource-constrained firms
benefit from a balance dimension of innovation ambidexterity but larger firms benefit from a
combined dimension of innovation ambidexterity. Accordingly, SMEs faced greater
challenges in managing tensions, contradictions, and trade-offs associated with explorative
and exploitative innovations than larger firms (Andriopoulos, Lewis 2009, Bierly, Daly 2007).
2.2 External Networks
For a long time firms relied on internal research and development to innovate and
create new products. Accordingly firms established large R&D departments as a strategic
asset and making this a considerable entry barrier for potential rivals. Due to labour mobility,
abundant venture capital and widely dispersed knowledge across multiple public and private
organizations, firms can no longer afford to innovate on their own, but rather need to engage
in alternative innovation practices (Van de Vrande, De Jong et al. 2009). Gupta et al (Gupta,
Smith et al. 2006) argues that innovation occurs in social broader systems than a single firm.
Michael Porter (Porter ) emphasized the importance of collaboration of industries in
the eighties. Based on the industrial organization perspective, Porter argued that clusters,
relationships among network members are primarily non-hierarchical, and participants often
have substantial operating autonomy (Porter ). Later the network theory (Håkansson 1987)
received attention in the resource base view and the dynamic capabilities view (Raisch,
Birkinshaw et al. 2009). Scholars researched the different forms of collaborations as clusters
(Porter ), interorganizational collaborations (Powell, Koput et al. 1996), alliances (Hamel
1991) and joint ventures (Kogut 1988). Later nets were added as form of collaboration
13
(Möller, Rajala et al. 2005). Three different types of value nets are defined: vertical,
horizontal and multidimensional. The vertical nets are to increase operational efficiency of the
value system (producer-supplier-customer), horizontal nets are formed by competitor
alliances and cooperative arrangements involving different institutional actors (government
agencies, industry associations, research institutes and universities) that focus on provide
access on existing resources or co-developing new resources (Möller, Rajala et al. 2005).
Multidimensional nets are well defined value systems, integrating all different products and
services from different suppliers and channels. Multidimensional nets are also formed for
creating new technologies or business concepts (Möller, Rajala et al. 2005).
For this research we are especially interested in the interorganizational networks or
external networks. External networks refer to common themes including social interaction,
relationships, connectedness, collaboration, collective action, trust, and cooperation (Provan,
Fish et al. 2007). Networks are defined as relationships among network members that are
primarily non-hierarchical, and participants often have substantial operating autonomy
(Provan, Fish et al. 2007). Networking is described as an interaction between government
agencies, inter-firm cooperation, intermediary institutions and research organizations (Möller,
Rajala et al. 2005). The network partners therefore are customers, suppliers, producers,
knowledge institutes, services providers and competitors. Network members can be linked by
many types of connections and flows, such as information, materials, financial resources,
services, and social support. Connections may be informal and totally trust based or more
formalized, as through a contract. The centrality of location in a network matters, firms with a
central position benefit more from the network they are in (Powell, Koput et al. 1996).
Although, it is still not clear scholars define as they use the term external networks (Provan,
Fish et al. 2007), in this research we focus on the external (business) networks which
according to Human and Provan, intentionally formed groups of profit-oriented firms which
are geographically proximate, operate within the same industry, potentially sharing inputs and
outputs and undertake direct interactions with each other for specific business outcomes
(Human, Provan 1997). Firms join networks to gain access to information and knowledge in
order to gain access to new or complementary competencies, technologies and markets
(Mitchell, Coles 2003).
The conduct and performance of firms is influenced in important ways by the strategic
networks in which they are embedded (Zaheer, Gulati et al. 2000). As firms form and
14
maintain alliances with each other, they construct a network of direct and indirect
relationships. As a result, firms embedded in these networks gain access to information and
know-how of direct partners and that of others in the network to which they are indirectly
connected (Ahuja 2000, Gulati, Gargiulo 1999). Firms enter networks to access critical
resources, but they rely on information from the network of prior alliances to determine with
whom to cooperate (Gulati, Gargiulo 1999). The position within a network, moreover the
central position in a network relative to others expect greater benefits in terms of knowledge
spill overs and information flows than peripheral actors (Powell, Koput et al. 1999). Central
organizations, because of their more numerous direct and indirect connections to others, have
more relationships to draw upon in obtaining resources and so are less dependent on any
single organization to explore (Scott, Carrington 2011). External relations with intermediary
organizations could be a source for innovation for SMEs (Doloreux 2004). Belderbos
(Belderbos, Carree et al. 2004) distinguish network actors for both incremental and more
radical innovations. They argued that competitor and supplier cooperation focus on
incremental innovation and university cooperation are important source of knowledge for
firms pursuing more radical innovations. Firms utilize networking as external source of
innovations and use networks to promote their own internally and external sourced
innovations (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke et al. 2006). More firms have moved to an open
innovation model in which they employ both internal and external pathways to exploit
technologies and acquire knowledge from external sources (Chesbrough 2003). Interactions
with the actors outside of the firm could also play a positive role for firms facing the
competence traps (Ahuja, Morris Lampert 2001). They argue that three competence traps
arise for existing firms: familiarity, maturity and propinquity traps. Familiarity traps results
from an overemphasis on known technologies within the firm, preventing the firm from
exploring new knowledge and technologies. Maturity traps results form a focus on existing
and established technologies which give reliable and predictable outcomes and therefore
limiting their effort in exploring knowledge. Propinquity traps come from the firms’ nature to
explore knowledge in areas closest to existing knowledge, preventing them to reflect
important shift in the external environment.
Although Ahuja and Lampert (Ahuja, Morris Lampert 2001) conducted their research
on large firms, the competence traps become evident for SME as well. Moreover, SMEs are
much more likely to be limited by these traps (Datta 2011) due to the limitation of resources
and risk-bearing capabilities. Within the network literature it is stressed out the proximity and
15
geographic location plays an important role in the outcomes of networks (Funk 2013). The
proximity offers benefits like transportations cost and access to labour (Porter, Stern 2001).
Moreover for innovation the greatest advantage is being near other firms form the increased
access to knowledge through spill overs (Funk 2013). Gellynck et al (Gellynck, Vermeire et
al. 2007) found evidence that firms are having a stronger innovation competence when
networking within the region, and when orienting towards the international market. Also
internationally operating firms benefit from regional networking (Gellynck, Vermeire et al.
2007).
2.3 Absorptive capacity
The resource base view (i.e. (Wernerfelt 1984, Hamel 1991, Prahalad, Hamel 1990,
Barney 1991) and the dynamic capability perspective (Teece, Pisano et al. 1997, Eisenhardt,
Martin 2000) underlines the firms need of resources and capabilities to manage new
knowledge to gain competitive advantage. Dynamic capabilities are defined as the firm’s
ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address
rapidly changing environments (Teece, Pisano et al. 1997). External networks form a
capability to access new knowledge through the ties with clients, firms and institutions.
Powell et al (Powell, Koput et al. 1996) links networking with the absorptive capacity of the
firm and argues that the development of cooperative routines goes beyond simply learning
how to maintain a large number of ties. Only access to new knowledge is not enough, firms
need to find the capability to manage the new knowledge (Zahra, George 2002). Lewin and
Massini (Lewin, Massini 2003) argue that firms that are early in adopting new technologies
and adopt them successfully, have superior absorptive capacity capabilities. To evaluate and
utilize knowledge from outside of firm is largely a function of the level of prior related
knowledge (Cohen, Levinthal 1990). The ability to exploit external knowledge is a critical
component of innovative capabilities. The ability of a firm to recognize the value of new,
external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is critical to its innovative
capabilities. This capability is labelled as a firm's absorptive capacity (Cohen, Levinthal
1990).
Key antecedents of absorptive capacity include prior related knowledge and
organizational factors. Based on the initial concept of Cohen and Levinthal and advanced by
Zahra and George (Zahra, George 2002) and Lewin et al (Lewin, Massini et al. 2011) four
16
steps in the absorptive capacity process are distinguished: acquisition, assimilation and
transformation. Acquisition holds the identification and acquisition of knowledge relevant to
the operations of the firm. Investment in R&D and prior knowledge is are antecedents in this
step (Cohen, Levinthal 1990), (Zahra, George 2002). Assimilation, holds the inclusion,
conversion and interpretation of information (Cohen, Levinthal 1990). During the third step,
transformation, new and existing information is combined (Zahra, George 2002). Finally
exploitation, where the application of knowledge is commercialized (Cohen, Levinthal 1990).
The four process steps are combined in two distinguished forms: potential absorptive capacity
(knowledge acquisition and assimilation) and realized absorptive capacity (knowledge
transformation and exploitation) (Zahra, George 2002). In the open innovation era, as
introduced by Chesbrough (Chesbrough 2003) firms rely more and more on external sources
of innovation. Chesbrough argues that the internal and external knowledge should be more in
balance and helps firms to be not only exploit knowledge but more over explore knowledge
beyond their operation. Rothaermel and Alexandre state that absorptive capacity is an
antecedent to the ambidexterity in technology sourcing (Rothaermel, Alexandre 2009). An
certain level of absorptive capacity allows a firm to overcome inherent tensions in
ambidexterity that arise from the simultaneous search of exploration and exploitation
(Rothaermel, Alexandre 2009).
In sum, it is well documented in the literature that absorptive capacity plays an
important role in the firm capability to process new knowledge. Moreover it is essential to
balance the exploiting and exploring innovation capabilities. The level of absorptive capacity
is coming from the level of existing knowledge within the firm (Rothaermel, Alexandre
2009). For large firms with an internal R&D capacity there is a significant investment in the
existing knowledge. However within SME firms this level of internal R&D base is limited.
Following the open innovation strategy it becomes apparent that SME should benefit more
from external networking than large firms to become ambidextrous. Although there is
evidence that absorptive capacity plays a role, little is known about difference between SME
and large firms. This leads us to the research questions of the thesis:
Are SME firms different in benefiting external knowledge in sense of innovative
ambidexterity? How external networks and absorptive capacity will have effect on innovative
ambidexterity?
17
3. Theoretical framework This thesis advances the theory about ambidexterity as antecedent to innovation by
combining the three constructs and by looking into the differences between SME and large
firms. In this way we try to get a better view how the antecedent interact with each other and
we advance the research in innovation in SMEs. Nowadays titled as the corner stone of
innovation (OECD 2010). In the next section I will go into the relations between the three
constructs and the moderator role of firm size, followed by the research model.
3.1 External networks and Innovative Ambidexterity
The resourced base view (i.e. (Wernerfelt 1984, Hamel 1991, Prahalad, Hamel 1990,
Barney 1991) and dynamic capability perspective (Teece, Pisano et al. 1997, Eisenhardt,
Martin 2000) underline the significance of both resources and dynamic capabilities of firms.
External networking, is a dynamic capability that enable firms to balance exploitative and
explorative innovation (Birkinshaw, Gibson 2004, Gibson, Birkinshaw 2004, Raisch,
Birkinshaw 2008). Moreover external networks are an antecedent for innovative
ambidexterity in a way that interactions with firms and organizations able the firm to
simultaneously exploit and explore knowledge within the firm. (Birkinshaw, Gibson 2004,
Gibson, Birkinshaw 2004, Raisch, Birkinshaw 2008). The locus on innovation lies within a
network of learning, composed of existing firms, new entrants, and research institutions,
rather than within the boundaries of individual firms (Powell, Koput et al. 1996). The concept
of innovative ambidexterity refers to the “ability to simultaneously pursue both incremental
(exploitative) and discontinuous (exploratory) innovation” (Tushman, Reilly et al. 1996).
Firms should, to be ambidextrous, be able to effectively manage the tensions that come from
pursuing exploration and exploitation simultaneously (Raisch, Birkinshaw 2008).
Exploration is related to sourcing of new knowledge or technology and exploitation is
related to sourcing of existing knowledge or technology (Rothaermel, Alexandre 2009).
External networks refer to common topics such as social interaction, relationships,
connectedness, collaboration, collective action, trust, and cooperation (Provan, Fish et al.
2007). Furthermore external networks assist firms in their problem solving and to overcome
the familiarly and convenience trap (Simsek 2009). A firm with heterogeneous partners has
access to more complementary resources and knowledge how to use these resources in their
operations (Simsek 2009). In contrast, a firm that has a homogenous network has little
18
opportunity to look into different perspectives because the member think and act similar
(Simsek 2009). Firms join networks to gain access to information and knowledge in order to
access to new or complementary competencies, technologies and markets (Mitchell, Coles
2003). The network partners for firms to cooperate are customers, suppliers, producers,
services providers and competitors. Hence, firms need to balance the internal and external
knowledge resources in order to become innovative ambidextrous. External networks plays a
significant role in the interactions with external actors and knowledge providers. Accordingly
we test the relationship between external networks and innovative ambidexterity:
Hypothesis 1: External Networking is positively related to Innovative Ambidexterity.
3.2 Absorptive Capacity, External Networks and Innovative Ambidexterity
In addition to the relationship between external networks and innovative
ambidexterity, this study suggests a mediating role for absorptive capacity. An appropriate
level of absorptive capacity allows a firm to overcome tensions in ambidexterity that arise
from the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation (Rothaermel, Alexandre 2009).
External networking enable firms to share knowledge and profit from complementary
resources. In order to profit from these knowledge resources firms need to learn how to
transfer and implement this newly acquired knowledge into the firm (Cohen, Levinthal 1990).
Firms that possess relevant prior knowledge are likely to have a better understanding of new
technology that can generate new ideas and develop new products absorptive capacity
(Cohen, Levinthal 1990). The search for a balance in incremental and discontinuous
innovation or innovation ambidexterity is to overcome an over attention on explorative
innovation which may result high R&D investments without a critical look in the efficiencies
(Tushman, Reilly et al. 1996). On the other hand may an over emphasis on costs and
efficiency lead only to incremental innovations.
External networks and more specifically the relationships between firms, research
institutes and universities affect a firm’s absorptive capacity (Cohen, Levinthal 1990). Too
much information derived from external networks however can lead to an information
overload. So, too much involvement in external networks can lead to less productive. Hence,
firms need to develop and routinize information filters and focus on only relevant information
(Simsek 2009). Firms may invest in external learning to gain knowledge unrelated to their
19
current areas of expertise or to use knowledge that advances their existing technologies and
products (Cohen, Levinthal 1990). In sum, firms need to explore new knowledge outside of
the firm in order to balance their exploitative and explorative innovative capabilities. To do so
firms need to increase their absorptive capacity. External networks are a source of new
knowledge, competencies and technologies. External networks therefore enables a firm to
expand knowledge, complementary to the existing knowledge base. This leads to the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Absorptive capacity significantly influences the relation of external networking
and innovative ambidexterity.
Firms are different in their ability to assimilate and replicate new knowledge gained from
external sources (Cohen, Levinthal 1990). The level of absorptive capacity influences this
ability (Tsai 2001). According to Cohen and Levinthal, absorptive capacity involves the
ability to assimilate new external knowledge and apply such knowledge to commercial ends.
Zahra and George distinguished potential and realized absorptive capacity (Zahra, George
2002). Firms need to manage these dimensions to obtain superior performance. A focus on
only acquisition and assimilation of new external knowledge able firms to renew their
knowledge stock, leads to acquisition cost without gains from exploitation. Otherwise, focus
on transformation and exploitation result short-term profits but does not enable firms to
respond to environmental changes (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al. 2005). Greater
levels of absorptive capacity enables firms to deal with the tensions arising from a
simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation from combining internal and external
sources (Rothaermel, Alexandre 2009). In order to investigate the differences between SME
and large firms and in line with Rothaermel and Alexandre I hypothesize that firms with
greater levels of absorptive capacity obtain larger benefits from innovative ambidexterity.
This leads to hypothesis 3:
Hypothesis 3: Absorptive capacity significantly influences the innovative ambidexterity of
firms.
20
3.3 Firm size
In addition to the relations o external networking and absorptive capacity to innovative
ambidexterity this studies is particular interested in the differences between large firms and
SMEs. Therefore in the research firm size is taken into account as moderator in the research
model.
The innovation capabilities of SMEs receive quit some attention as they nowadays are
seen as the drivers of innovation (OECD 2010). Times have changed since Schumpeter
(Schumpeter 1934) argued that large firms are more likely to innovate than SMEs. Recent
studies show that large firms actually tend to be slower to respond to new opportunities than
smaller firms (Morris, Kuratko et al. 2010) and may lack sufficient flexibility to adopt
ambidextrous behaviour (Jansen, Tempelaar et al. 2009). SMEs on the other hand, generally
do not have access to large amounts of slack or resources to balance the exploitative and
explorative capabilities (Lubatkin, Simsek et al. 2006). They also often do not have the
resources to manage and organize the whole innovation process and therefore are more
looking into collaborating with other firms (OECD 2010).
Research into SMEs show that network ties (Nooteboom 1999) may be a typical SME
instrument for innovation. Nootenboom argued that “the relevant variable is not firm size, but
degree of integration and the strength of links” (Nooteboom 1999). Accordingly we look into
the differences in relations between external networks, absorptive capacity and innovative
ambidexterity for SME and large firms. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Firm size influences the relation of external networking, absorptive capacity
and innovative ambidexterity.
21
In sum, this research is seeking for empirically evidence in to the relations between
external networking and absorptive capacity as antecedents of innovative ambidexterity and
moreover the moderating role of firm size. The proposed hypotheses lead to the following
conceptual model:
Absorptive
capacity
External
networking
Innovative
Ambidexterity
Firm size
H2
H1
H3
H4
22
4. Methodology
4.1 Data collection and sample
The goal of this research is to find out empirically evidence about the relationships
between innovative ambidexterity, absorptive capacity and external networks. Moreover the
research looks into the differences of the relations between SME and large firms. To test the
hypotheses, quantitative data is collected with a single data collection technique. An online
questionnaire is used to collect the data efficiently and economically. This technique has its
limitations like the forced answers through the Likert scale and possible misinterpretation of
the questions and answers, on the other hand it is efficient and cost effective technique
(Saunders, Lewis 2012). An online questionnaire is send through email to 1.320 Dutch firms
which were sampled using a convenience sampling approach. 125 email addresses bounced.
The sample is partially extracted from a firm database from the Regional development agency
NHN and partially from firm relations of colleague students. In order to get a larger sample
size, a collaboration was formed of four students, which have the ambidexterity as one of the
constructs. The questions of the survey where all based on existing measures in the literature.
For this research I choose multiply questions about the three constructs, absorptive capacity,
external networks and innovative ambidexterity. The online survey was held in November
2014. To motivate the respondents we donated fifty eurocent to the Movember Foundation.
The data exists of in total 173 complete filled in questionnaires of which 95 SMEs and 78
large firms. SMEs in this research are defined as firm with less than 250 employees.
4.2 Measures
The selected measures and scales are a result of the literature review and after
discussion with the students in the questionnaire collaboration. For the three measures a
seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) was used, with Cronbach’s
alphas exceeding the threshold of .7 (Hair, Anderson et al. 1998). With the student group we
have selected the questions in that way that similar questions were avoided to prevent the
questionnaire being too large.
23
4.2.1 Dependent variable: Innovative ambidexterity
Innovative ambidexterity is defined as the dependent variable. Innovative
ambidexterity signifies the “ability to simultaneously pursue both incremental (exploitative)
and discontinuous (exploratory) innovation” (Tushman, Reilly et al. 1996). To measure
ambidexterity the constructs for exploitative and exploratory innovation ambidexterity,
adopted from Jansen et al (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al. 2006) are used.
The outcome of the dependent variable innovative ambidexterity is put on the same
seven point Likert scale used for the independent variables in order to compare the results.
The values of exploitative and explorative innovative ambidexterity were added to create one
construct (Lubatkin, Simsek et al. 2006).
4.2.2 Independent variable: Absorptive capacity
Absorptive capacity is frequently measured by the potential and realized absorptive
capacity measure of Jansen and Van den Bosch et al (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al.
2006, Jansen, Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al. 2005). This reliable scale is based on twenty-
one questions about potential and realized absorptive capacity. Due to collaboration with the
four students and the limitation of the total amount of questions I adopted an alternative scale
Dependent variable: Innovative Ambidexterity
Exploratory innovation (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al. 2006) (1 = strongly disagree ;
7 = strongly agree)
1) Our organization accepts demands that go beyond existing products and services.
2) We commercialize products and services that are completely new to our organization.
3) We frequently utilize new opportunities in new markets.
4) Our organization regularly uses new distribution channels.
Exploitative innovation (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al. 2006) (1 = strongly disagree ;
7 = strongly agree)
5) We frequently make small adjustments to our existing products and services.
6) We improve our provision’s efficiency of products and services.
7) We increase economies of scales in existing markets.
8) Our organization expands services for existing clients.
24
of three questions. This prevented the questionnaire of being too long and the risk of poor
data. Absorptive capacity was measured using a three-item scale (α = 0.93) adopted from
Wang et al. (Wang, Senaratne et al. 2014). Wang et al adopted the scale of absorptive
capability of García-Morales, Lloréns-Montes and Verdú-Jover’s (García‐Morales, Lloréns‐
Montes et al. 2008), which in return is based on Cohen and Levinthal’s ((Cohen, Levinthal
1990) definition of absorptive capability.
Independent variable Absorptive Capabilities (1 = strongly disagree ; 7 = strongly agree)
9) This firm has the necessary skills to implement newly acquired knowledge
10) This firm has the competences to transform the newly acquired knowledge
11) This firm has the competences to use the newly acquired knowledge
Original Source: (Wang, Senaratne et al. 2014)
4.2.3 Independent variable: External Networks
Although, it is still not clear scholars define as they use the term networks (Provan,
Fish et al. 2007), in this research we focus on the external (business) networks. These external
networks are intentionally formed groups of profit-oriented companies in which the firms are
geographically proximate; operate within the same industry, potentially sharing inputs and
outputs; and undertake direct interactions with each other for specific business outcomes
(Human, Provan 1997).
The independent variable external networks was measured based on (Zeng, Xie et al.
2010). The level of external networks is defined from eight-item construct of collaboration of
a firm with external actors ((Doloreux 2004).
25
4.2.4 Control variables
To control for inconsistent effects the variables age, size and industry of the firm were
included in the questionnaire. The variable size of the firm is used as control variable to
differentiate the database into SME and large firms. Large firms and SME act differently in
ambidextrous and network behaviour. Where large firms may have a wider variety in
resources to able ambidextrous behaviour, SME are generally more flexible to adopt
ambidexterity (Jansen, Tempelaar et al. 2009). The age of the firm is included because older
firms tend to overstate operational efficiency and exploitation compared to explorations and
flexibility (Benner, Tushman 2003). On the other hand young firms have the tendency to only
focus on exploratory activities (Benner, Tushman 2003). This contrast in exploitative and
explorative innovation pursue may affect the ambidexterity outcomes. In order to be able to
generalize the outcomes to different industries, the control variable industry of the firm was
added.
Control Variables
20) Firm size
21) Firm age
22) Firm industry
Independent variable External Networks (1 = strongly disagree ; 7 = strongly agree)
12) Extent of your firm have cooperated with customers and client
13) Extent of your firm have cooperated with suppliers
14) Extent of your firm have cooperated with competitors/rivals
15) Extent of your firm have cooperated with government agencies
16) Extent of your firm have cooperated with industrial associations
17) Extent of your firm have cooperated with venture capital organizations
18) Extent of your firm have cooperated with universities
19) Extent of your firm have cooperated with research institutions
Using the measures for knowledge networks of (Zeng, Xie et al. 2010)
26
5. Data analyses and Results
5.1 Data analyses
The survey was send by email to 1.320 firms, response was 173 complete filled in
questionnaires. The questionnaire was designed in Qualtrics. In Qualtrics the questions were
forced with an answer, to excluded missing values. The questions were all checked for
reversed coding. No need to adjust for. Three control variables were used, firm size, age and
industry of the firm. In the appendix the descriptive of firm’s industry and age are presented.
The variable Firm size is presented in table 1.
According to the European standards for defining SMEs we defined a SME as a firm
up to 250 employees. From the 173 respondents we recorded 95 SME firms and 78 large
firms. We also check for differences in industries and age of the firm. The respondents were
asked to give there industry based on the industry index used by the Dutch Chamber of
Commerce. From respondents 12,1% reported to be active in Industry and 17,9 % reported to
be active in Business services. From the respondents 8,1% reported working in a firm existing
less than 5 years, 14,5% of the firms is 6 to 14 years and 78,5 % of the firms are 15 years or
older.
Table 1: Firm size
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
0 - 9 34 19.7 19.7 19.7
10 - 49 37 21.4 21.4 41.0
50 - 250 24 13.9 13.9 54.9
250+ 78 45.1 45.1 100.0
Total 173 100.0 100.0
27
5.2 Results
Reliability
The questions for the different variables where chosen from existing literature and
checked for their reliability. To check for reliability the Cronbach alpha measures were
computed in SPPS. The Cronbach alpha for Innovative Ambidexterity was .84, for Absorptive
Capacity .93 and for External networks .72. The Cronbach Alpha for External Networks could
be higher when we excluded the variable Investors (.74), but I choose not do this since the
Cronbach Alpha was already >.7.
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Absorptive Capacity 1.00 7.00 5.1156 1.34087 -.906 .185 .236 .367
Innovative Ambidexterity 1.00 7.00 4.9841 .96426 -.551 .185 1.285 .367
External Networking 1.00 7.00 4.7471 .94584 -.769 .185 1.330 .367
Valid N (listwise)
The three measures were checked for skewness, indicating the degree and direction of
asymmetry. All three measures have moderate negatively skewness (mean is less than the
median), which indicates that most respondents score higher on agree. Analyzing the sub-
measures for External Networking we see a highly negative skewness for collaboration with
customers (-1,586) and suppliers (-1,718) indicating that firms collaborate more with these
network actor, furthermore collaboration with Investors (-.149) is less common practice. We
then computed the variables for Absorptive Capacity, Innovative Ambidexterity and External
Networks.
Correlations
In table 3 the correlations between the different variables are presented. The bivariate
correlation analysis show significant correlations between external networking and innovative
ambidexterity (.390), external networking and absorptive capacity (.319), and between
absorptive capacity and innovative ambidexterity (.442). The mean of External networking
(4,75) is lower than the means for Absorptive capacity (5.12) and Innovative ambidexterity
(4.98).
28
The control variables age and industry of the firm did not show significant correlation
with the three constructs in this study. Firm size show significant correlations with external
networking (.152) and innovative ambidexterity (-.171). The control variables age and firm
size show significant correlations (.651**) between each other. This is part of another
discussion, not to be discussed in this study.
Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations for All firms, SME and Large firms
All firms SME (<250) Large (>250)
Variables M SD M SD M SD
1. Firm’s Industry 11.21 5.50 11.17 5.48 11.27 5.55
2. Size of the firm 2.84 1.20 1.89 0.78 4.00 0.00
3. Age of the firm 3.12 0.94 2.68 0.96 3.65 0.58
4. External Networking 4.75 0.95 4.62 1.07 4.90 0.75
5. Absorptive Capacity 5.12 1.34 5.16 1.35 5.06 1.33
6. Innovative Ambidexterity 4.98 0.96 5.11 0.95 4.83 0.96
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
In Table 4 the means and standard deviations difference between SME and Large
firms are presented. The control variable Firm size was used to divide the respondent firms in
to SME and large firms. SME‘s is defined a firm with less than 250 employees and large
firms with more than 250 employees. In SPSS I split the outcomes accordingly. SME has a
slightly lower mean for External Networking and higher Absorptive Capacity and Innovative
Ambidexterity. There are no large differences between Firms industry compared to the size.
Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Firm’s Industry 11.21 5.50 -
2. Size of the firm 2.84 1.20 -0.02 -
3. Age of the firm 3.12 0.94 -0.11 .651** -
4. External Networking 4.75 0.95 0.03 .152* 0.06 (.72)
5. Absorptive Capacity 5.12 1.34 -0.05 -0.11 -0.05 .319** (.93)
6. Innovative Ambidexterity 4.98 0.96 -0.09 -.171* -0.11 .390** .442** (0.84)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
29
Multiple Regression
With a regression analyses the relations between the independent variables External
Networking and Absorptive Capacity and the dependent variable Innovative Ambidexterity
are tested. To do so I try to find support for hypothesis 1 and 3, the relationship between
External Networking and Innovative Ambidexterity and the relationship between Absorptive
capacity and Innovative Ambidexterity. The multiple regression indicates the proportion of
variance of the dependent variable Innovative Ambidexterity explained by External
Networking and Absorptive capacity. The control variables firm’s industry, age and size
where added to the model.
Table 5. Hierarchical Regression Model of Innovative Ambidexterity (All firms)
R R² R²
Change
F
Change B SE β t
Sig.
Model 1 .196a 0.039 0.039 2.261
Industry of firm
-0.017 0.013 -0,097 -1.271 0.205
Firm Size -0.131 0.08 -0.162 -1.631 0.105
Age of the firm
-0.018 0.102 -0.018 -0.176 0.861
Model 2 .552c .305 *** 0,266*** 32.016
Industry of firm -0.016 0.011 -0.090 -1.382 0.169
Firm Size -0.151 0.070 -0.188* -2.160 0.032
Age of the firm -0.001 0.088 -0.001 -0.014 0.988
Absorptive Capacity 0.327 0.071 0,320*** 4.602 0.000
External Networking 0.227 0.050 0,316*** 4.563 0.000
Note: Statistical significance * p < ,05; ** p < ,01; *** p < ,001
a. Predictors: (Constant), Industry of the firm, Firm size, Age of the firm
b. Predictors: (Constant), Industry of the firm, Firm Size, Age of the firm, Absorptive Capacity, External Networking
The results are shown in Table 5. In the first step of hierarchical multiple regression,
three predictors were entered in Model 1: firm´s industry, size and age. Model 1 was
statistically not significant F (3, 169) = 2.261; p > .05; explaining 3,9 % of variance in
innovative ambidexterity. Model 2 (Absorptive Capacity, Innovative Ambidexterity and
External Networks) is explained with an R square of .305 and an R square change of .266
with a significance of .000. The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 30.5%
F (5, 167) = 14.66; p < .000.
30
The introduction of absorptive capacity and external networks in the model explained,
after controlling for firms industry, size and age, an additional 26.6% variance in Innovative
ambidexterity (R2 Change = .266; F (2, 167) = 32.016; p < .000). In Model 2 three out of five
predictor variables (Firm size, absorptive capacity and external networks were statistically
significant, with external networks recording a slightly higher Beta value (β = .320, p < .05)
than absorptive capacity (β = .316, p < .05). In sum, I find support for hypothesis 1 and 3
stating that both external networking and absorptive capacity both play a significant role in a
firm’s innovative ambidexterity. In model 2 Firm size is tested as a significant predictor
variable (β=-0.188*, p= 0.032).
Now support is found for hypothesis 1 and 3, I further analyze the effect of external
networking on innovative ambidexterity, both directly and indirectly through the absorptive
capacity of a firm. To test this, a non-parametric bootstrapping procedure for testing multiple-
mediation was used. The models for mediation of Preacher and Hayes (2008) are used. In
SPSS the macro PROCESS for SPSS was used. In the model the covariates are again firm
industry and firm age. To look into the differences in mediation effects between SME and
Large firms he database was split.
Table 6. Mediation effect (Process)
SME Large Total
Coeff. Coeff. Coeff.
a1 External Networking – Absorptive Capacity 0.5555 0.3433 0.461
b1 Absorptive Capacity – Innovative Ambidexterity 0.1857 0.2986 0.243
Direct effect c1' External Networking - Innovative Ambidexterity 0.2713 0.479 0.2976
Indirect effect a1b1 Extnetwo - AbsCap - InnoAmbi 0.1032 0.1025 0.112
Total Effect c1 Extnetwo - AbsCap - InnoAmbi 0.3744 0.5815 0.4096
In table 6 the results of the mediation test show again support for the direct effect of
external networking leading to innovative ambidexterity (c1’= .2976); where the direct effect
for Large firm is noted higher than for SME. The indirect effect through absorptive capacity
(a1b1 = .112) leads to a total effect of .4096. There is hardly difference of the indirect effect
for SME and Large firm, but the direct effect of external networking leading to innovative
ambidexterity is higher for large firms. For SME those firms who more external networking
have ,56 units more absorptive capacity (than those with no external networking (sign). The
total effect of those firms who are External Networking are ,37 units more Innovative
31
Ambidextrous than firms who do not External networking (statistically ≠ 0). For Large firms
this is even larger .58 units. In sum, support is found that external networking leads to
innovative ambidexterity both directly and indirectly, through absorptive capacity. This
provide the evidence to support hypothesis 2. Absorptive capacity mediates the relation of
External networking and innovative ambidexterity.
To find support for the effect of firm size (Hypothesis 4) on the relations in the
conceptual model a moderation mediation test (Table 7) was conducted. The moderation
mediation test was performed in Process (see also appendix for results).
To control and back up above results, I performed another regression analysis in SPSS. For
this analysis a moderator variable for External Networking (Mod_Extnetwork) and for
Absorptive Capacity was computed by multiplying the variable by the computed variable
SMEorLargefirm (MKBtot). See table 8 for the results.
Table 8 Moderation regression analysis
Innovative Ambidexterity R2 R2 adj.
R2
Change Sig. F. Change B SE B Sig.
Model 1 0.296 0.284
0.000
Absorptive Capacity
.242 .337 .000
External networking
.316 .310 .000
SME or Large firm
.351 .182 .006
Model 2 0.317 0.297 0.021 0.080
Absorptive Capacity
.246 .342 .000
External networking
.368 .361 .000
SME or Large firm
.318 2.477 .014
Mod_Extnetwork
-.110 -1.448 .149
Mod_Absorp
-.063 -1.299 .196
Table 7 Moderator mediation effect
Absorptive
Capacity
Innovative
Ambidexterity
R-square 0.1231 0.3171
int_1 (Extnetwo x SMELarge : AbsCap) 0.3065*
int_2 (Extnetwo x SMElarge : InnAmb) -0.2613*
Conditional Direct effect SME 0.2412
Conditional Direct effect Large firms 0.5024
Conditional Indirect effect SME 0.0620
Conditional Indirect effect Large firms 0.1374
* Significance p >.05
32
The variable SMEor Large significantly influence the variable Innovative
Ambidexterity, but it does not moderate significantly the interaction between external
networking and innovative ambidexterity, neither had it moderated significantly the
interaction between external networking and absorptive capacity.
Although both of the tests were not significant (p >.05) I noted differences between
the effect of firm size on respectively Absorptive capacity and Innovative Ambidexterity.
More over the direct conditional effect on Innovative ambidexterity is higher than the indirect
effect through Absorptive capacity. The direct conditional effect of large firm on the relation
between external networking and Innovative ambidexterity is higher than for SME firm,
indicating that large firms have more benefit from external networking than SME firms. In
sum, since the outcomes of the moderation analysis is not significant, hypothesis 4, the
influence of firm size on the relation is not supported.
33
6. Discussion
The results confirm that external networking positively influences the level of
innovative ambidexterity. Moreover, absorptive capacity positively mediates the relationship.
The moderating role of firm size was tested, but was not significant. An explanation
for this could be found in the fact that the chosen SME firm size (< 250 employees) still
constitutes firms with a sufficient resources and slack to innovate. Another possible
explanation could be found in the dynamic capabilities literature where Teece argued that not
only scale and scope of the firm is important, but moreover an entrepreneurial management of
firm is important (Teece, Pisano et al. 1997). In this sense also the age of the firm could play
role because over three-quarter of the firms exist longer than fifteen years. Although the
moderation analyses did not show significant evidence of the moderating role of firm size,
differences in outcomes between SME and large firms are apparent. The results show that the
direct effect of external networking on the innovative ambidexterity is for large firms larger
than for SME. This indicates that large firms apparently are more involved and benefiting
from external networking than SME firms. This is in line with the findings of the study by
Van de Vrande et al (Van de Vrande, De Jong et al. 2009) showing that large firms are not
only involved with clients and suppliers but also with universities and knowledge institutes, in
contrary with SMEs who are leas involved with universities and knowledge institutes.
The role of absorptive capacity in acquiring knowledge is confirmed, although the
results show that the positive mediation effect on the relation between networking and
ambidexterity is limited. The collaborations with external actors provide both new knowledge
and reflect the existing knowledge base of a firm. Within a large firm, where already a broad
knowledge base exists, the positive effects of networking could therefore be explained. For
SMEs, where the knowledge base is limited due to constraint in slack and resources it is more
difficult to profit from external networking. On the other hand firms with limited resources
and knowledge base are supposed to be forced to search for collaboration outside of the firm.
An emphasis on external networking is then expected, however finding show that this only
partially the case. The results of external networking do show that firms act intensively with
customers and suppliers. This will lead to innovation, however in most cases only
incremental. The collaboration with other external network actors remains limited. To obtain
34
a more explorative knowledge in order to come to more radical innovations is obtain new
fundamental knowledge needed, in which universities and knowledge institutes can provide.
The results confirm that large firm are more active with universities and knowledge institutes.
In the relation between external networking and innovative ambidexterity the role of
absorptive capacity is further explained. The ability to acquire and integrate knowledge within
the firm is essential to become innovative ambidextrous. The results show significantly
differences in SME and large firm in their external networking and the role of absorptive
capacity. Moreover the interactions with clients and suppliers are good for incremental
changes and working together with governmental organisations and universities lead to
continuous and more radical innovations. According to the literature, in order to attract new
knowledge for the firm there is a need for a bases of knowledge within the firm, so called
absorptive capacity. The absorptive capacity (Cohen, Levinthal 1990) expand the benefits of
external innovation sourcing both on innovativeness and financial performance (Rothaermel,
Alexandre 2009). Moreover firms have to face the challenge to become and keep the firm
ambidextrous in a way that they pursue both exploitation and exploration of the firms’
resources. Especially for SME firms it is a challenge to extend limited knowledge resources.
Smaller firms tend to exploit knowledge more than larger firms where the larger firm have the
ability and resources to explore and acquire knowledge. The smaller firms have a need to
together with others in a network to benefit from each other’s resources. Firms interact in
external networks for many reasons, including the share the cost and risks of research and
development, large projects, or to develop new markets or penetrate new markets.
The strategy theory is continuously in pursuit of the competitive advantage of firms.
The theories evolve from an industry orientation with an outside in approach to the resourced
based view (RBV) with an inside out approach (Porter 1980, Bain 1968, Penrose 1959,
Barney 1991, Wernerfelt 1984). On the premises of extended RBV and the dynamic
capabilities view and in line with the concept of open innovation, the role of external
networking as capability to become an ambidextrous firm is theorized. The network theory is
applied to investigate the dynamics of resources from outside of the firm. Based on the theory
firms, firms need to innovate and adapt continuously in rapidly changing markets
environments. Accordingly firms needs both need to be exploitative and explorative
innovative. For firms to be able simultaneously exploit and explore innovation, acquiring and
integrating new knowledge is a dynamic capability needed. For SMEs with a limited
35
resources the need for attracting external knowledge is more evident than for large firms. This
research underlines the necessity for SMEs to manage external networking more strategically
so it becomes not only a dynamic capability but moreover a competitive advantage.
Chesbrough (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke et al. 2006) underlines the need for open innovation
especially for SME firm as a way to support innovation through interaction with other firms.
In this perspective the debate is not whether the locus is SME or large but the more a debate
of the collaboration between SMEs and large firms and SMEs between SMEs. For example
the Dutch chip machine manufacturer ASML, which originated originally from the Philips
research lab, on one hand teamed up with their major customers Samsung and Intel, and on
the other hand they collaborate with SMEs and a technology start-ups in their search for
advancing the chip technology. Despite of their large internal R&D infrastructure, their
strategy is collaboration within a technology network.
These results are also managerial important for firms to manage external relations
more effectively, not only with clients and suppliers but also with universities, knowledge
institutes and governmental organizations. Previous research on the relation between
absorptive capacity and knowledge institutes confirm that collaboration with knowledge
institutes in fact can play a role to build the absorptive capacity within the firm (Spithoven,
Clarysse et al. 2011). SMEs could benefit more from external networking and so expanding
their knowledge base to innovate. For firms, the need for networking is not only because of
the lack of resources but also as part of their strategy. The business environment is becoming
a network environment where knowledge and resources are spread between partners more
easily. In this research the differences in level of collaborations between actors show the
under investment in collaboration with universities, government and knowledge institutes. It
is unmistaken that SME need to invest in this relation, but also the network actors themselves
need to invest in collaborations with firms. The government plays a mediating role, especially
on a regional network level. They play an active role in bridging the relationships between
firms, knowledge institutes and universities. To do so the Triple Helix model (Etzkowitz,
Leydesdorff 2000, Etzkowitz 2008) is more and more used, the Triple Helix model is a
collaboration form where government, knowledge institutes and industry collaborate. This is
performed on an industry or sector level, and on research program level.
36
6.2 Limitations and future research
This research has its limitations. First the dataset is composed through a general
database of firms in The Netherlands and the business network of fellow students. The chosen
firms were not specifically selected based specifically on their network or innovation efforts.
Although the collaboration with fellow students has the advantage of a large database and
response it also limited the use questions asked. The questions for absorptive capability for
example were composed of a three questions construct, where the literature proposed a
twenty-one question construct. Another possible limitation is the choice for quantitative
research, where the measure for external networking is limited to the level (quantity) of
interaction with external actors. In the outcomes of external networking also other outcomes
more qualitative aspects could be of relevance.
There is still a lot need to be discovered in how external networks can play role in
innovative ambidexterity. As suggested in the managerial implications external networks
needs to be strategically managed by the top management in order to promote the open
innovation culture. Future research on the role of TMT in the relation between external
networks and innovative ambidexterity is therefore suggested. Another interesting research
topic is configuration of the external network which leads to innovative ambidexterity in
respect of the size of the firm.
The findings of the moderation of firm size were not significantly where otherwise
was expected. Further research is needed to quantify the differences in firm size. In line with
the findings about the limited interactions of SME with research institutes and vice versa,
further research in how this gap could be overcome is proposed. In this respect the proposed
level of analysis is not only SME but also research institutes and universities.
37
6.3 Conclusion
The goal of this thesis is to get a better understanding of the possibilities of firms
collaborating in external networks in relation to innovative ambidexterity. This research
extend our understanding of knowledge transfer in the sense of innovative ambidexterity and
contributes to the dynamic capabilities view in relation to the concept of open innovation. The
literature put forward the benefits of collaboration in relation to the resource constraints firms’
face in today’s dynamic environment. Although it is evident from a theoretical point of view,
results of this study show that firms still face difficulties. According to the results
collaboration in external networks play a significant role for firms to become innovative
ambidextrous. Also the level of absorptive capacity of a firm plays a significant mediation
role in this relationship. Findings show that differences between SMEs and large are present,
although firm size as a whole does not play a significant moderating role. Results show that
large firms are more involved in external networking than SME firms which lead to a better
balance in innovative ambidexterity. This is in contrast to what was expected, since SME are
proposed to collaborate in networks to overcome their lack of resources and information to
innovate. Results show that SME collaboration with clients and suppliers are part of their
operations, but collaborations with universities, governments and research institutes could be
improved in order to not only incremental innovations but also more radical innovations. To
do so firms can profit more from external networking and becoming a successful
ambidextrous firm.
38
References
AHUJA, G., 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal
study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), pp. 425-455.
AHUJA, G. and MORRIS LAMPERT, C., 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A
longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic
Management Journal, 22(6‐ 7), pp. 521-543.
ANDRIOPOULOS, C. and LEWIS, M.W., 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and
organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science,
20(4), pp. 696-717.
ARYA, B. and LIN, Z., 2007. Understanding Collaboration Outcomes From an Extended
Resource-Based View Perspective: The Roles of Organizational Characteristics, Partner
Attributes, and Network Structures†. Journal of management, 33(5), pp. 697-723.
BAIN, J.S., 1968. Industrial organization. John Wiley & Sons.
BARNEY, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
management, 17(1), pp. 99-120.
BARNEY, J.B., 2001. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year
retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of management, 27(6), pp. 643-650.
BARNEY, J.B., 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy.
Management science, 32(10), pp. 1231-1241.
BELDERBOS, R., CARREE, M. and LOKSHIN, B., 2004. Cooperative R&D and firm
performance. Research policy, 33(10), pp. 1477-1492.
BENNER, M.J. and TUSHMAN, M.L., 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process
management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), pp.
238-256.
BIERLY, P.E. and DALY, P.S., 2007. Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive
environment, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 31(4), pp. 493-516.
BIRKINSHAW, J. and GIBSON, C., 2004. Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 45, pp. 47-55.
BURGELMAN, R.A., 1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and
organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization science, 2(3), pp. 239-262.
CAO, Q., GEDAJLOVIC, E. and ZHANG, H., 2009. Unpacking organizational
ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science,
20(4), pp. 781-796.
39
CHESBROUGH, H.W., 2003. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and
profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
CHESBROUGH, H., VANHAVERBEKE, W. and WEST, J., 2006. Open innovation:
Researching a new paradigm. Oxford university press.
CHESBROUGH, H., VANHAVERBEKE, W. and WEST, J., 2006. Open innovation:
Researching a new paradigm.
COHEN, W.M. and LEVINTHAL, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, , pp. 128-152.
COOPER, A.C., GIMENO-GASCON, F.J. and WOO, C.Y., 1994. Initial human and financial
capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of business venturing, 9(5), pp.
371-395.
DATTA, A., 2011. Combining networks, ambidexterity and absorptive capacity to explain
commercialization of innovations: a theoretical model from review and extension. Journal of
Management and Strategy, 2(4), pp. p2.
DEAN, T.J., BROWN, R.L. and BAMFORD, C.E., 1998. Differences in large and small firm
responses to environmental context: Strategic implications from a comparative analysis of
business formations. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), pp. 709-728.
DOLOREUX, D., 2004. Regional innovation systems in Canada: a comparative study.
Regional Studies, 38(5), pp. 479-492.
DUNCAN, R.B., 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for
innovation. The management of organization, 1, pp. 167-188.
DYER, J.H. and SINGH, H., 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4), pp. 660-
679.
EBBEN, J.J. and JOHNSON, A.C., 2005. Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking
strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(13), pp. 1249-
1259.
EISENHARDT, K.M. and MARTIN, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they?
Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), pp. 1105-1121.
ELSENHARDT, K.M. and MARTIN, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they.
Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), pp. 1105-1121.
ETZKOWITZ, H., 2008. The triple Helix: university-industry-government. Innovation in
action, .
40
ETZKOWITZ, H. and LEYDESDORFF, L., 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from
National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government
relations. Research policy, 29(2), pp. 109-123.
FORBES, D.P. and MILLIKEN, F.J., 1999. Cognition and corporate governance:
Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of
Management Review, 24(3), pp. 489-505.
FUNK, R., 2013. Making the most of where you are: Geography, networks, and innovation in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, , pp. amj. 2012.0585.
GARCÍA‐MORALES, V.J., LLORÉNS‐MONTES, F.J. and VERDÚ‐JOVER, A.J., 2008.
The Effects of transformational leadership on organizational performance through knowledge
and innovation*. British Journal of Management, 19(4), pp. 299-319.
GELLYNCK, X., VERMEIRE, B. and VIAENE, J., 2007. Innovation in food firms:
contribution of regional networks within the international business context. Entrepreneurship
& Regional Development, 19(3), pp. 209-226.
GIBSON, C.B. and BIRKINSHAW, J., 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating
role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), pp. 209-226.
GIBSON, C.B. and BIRKINSHAW, J., 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating
role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), pp. 209-226.
GIBSON, C.B. and BIRKINSHAW, J., 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating
role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), pp. 209-226.
GIBSON, C.B. and BIRKINSHAW, J., 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating
role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management Journal, 47(2), pp. 209-226.
GRANT, R.M., 1996. Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17(S2), pp. 109-122.
GRIMALDI, M., QUINTO, I. and RIPPA, P., 2013. Enabling open innovation in small and
medium enterprises: a dynamic capabilities approach. Knowledge and Process Management,
20(4), pp. 199-210.
GULATI, R., 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and
firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), pp. 397-420.
GULATI, R., 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), pp. 293-
317.
GULATI, R., 1995. Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis.
Administrative Science Quarterly, , pp. 619-652.
GULATI, R. and GARGIULO, M., 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from?
1. American journal of sociology, 104(5), pp. 1439-1493.
41
GUPTA, A.K., SMITH, K.G. and SHALLEY, C.E., 2006. The interplay between exploration
and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), pp. 693-706.
HAIR, J.F., ANDERSON, R.E., TATHAM, R.L. and WILLIAM, C., 1998. Black (1998),
Multivariate data analysis.
HÅKANSSON, H., 1987. Industrial technological development: a network approach. Croom
Helm London.
HAMEL, G., 1991. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international
strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), pp. 83-103.
HAMEL, G., 1991. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international
strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), pp. 83-103.
HE, Z. and WONG, P., 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the
ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), pp. 481-494.
HUMAN, S.E. and PROVAN, K.G., 1997. An emergent theory of structure and outcomes in
small-firm strategic manufacturing networks. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), pp.
368-403.
JANSEN, J.J., TEMPELAAR, M.P., VAN DEN BOSCH, FRANS AJ and VOLBERDA,
H.W., 2009. Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration
mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), pp. 797-811.
JANSEN, J.J., VAN DEN BOSCH, FRANS AJ and VOLBERDA, H.W., 2006. Exploratory
innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents
and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11), pp. 1661-1674.
JANSEN, J.J., VAN DEN BOSCH, FRANS AJ and VOLBERDA, H.W., 2005. Managing
potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter?
Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), pp. 999-1015.
KOGUT, B., 1988. Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic
Management Journal, 9(4), pp. 319-332.
KOGUT, B. and ZANDER, U., 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and
the replication of technology. Organization science, 3(3), pp. 383-397.
KORTMANN, S., 2012. Organizational Ambidexterity. The Relationship between
Organizational Structure and Organizational Ambidexterity. Springer, pp. 18-41.
LEVINTHAL, D.A. and MARCH, J.G., 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(S2), pp. 95-112.
LEWIN, A.Y. and MASSINI, S., 2003. Knowledge creation and organizational capabilities of
innovating and imitating firms. Organizations as knowledge systems, , pp. 209-237.
42
LEWIN, A.Y., MASSINI, S. and PEETERS, C., 2011. Microfoundations of internal and
external absorptive capacity routines. Organization Science, 22(1), pp. 81-98.
LICHTENTHALER, U., 2011. Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future
directions. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), pp. 75-93.
LICHTENTHALER, U. and LICHTENTHALER, E., 2009. A capability‐based framework for
open innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8),
pp. 1315-1338.
LUBATKIN, M.H., SIMSEK, Z., LING, Y. and VEIGA, J.F., 2006. Ambidexterity and
performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team
behavioral integration. Journal of management, 32(5), pp. 646-672.
LUBATKIN, M.H., SIMSEK, Z., LING, Y. and VEIGA, J.F., 2006. Ambidexterity and
performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team
behavioral integration. Journal of management, 32(5), pp. 646-672.
MARCH, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
science, 2(1), pp. 71-87.
MITCHELL, D. and COLES, C., 2003. The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing
business model innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 24(5), pp. 15-21.
MÖLLER, K., RAJALA, A. and SVAHN, S., 2005. Strategic business nets—their type and
management. Journal of Business research, 58(9), pp. 1274-1284.
MORRIS, M., KURATKO, D. and COVIN, J., 2010. Corporate entrepreneurship &
innovation. Cengage Learning.
NOOTEBOOM, B., 1999. Innovation, learning and industrial organisation. Cambridge
Journal of economics, 23(2), pp. 127-150.
O’REILLY III, C.A. and TUSHMAN, M.L., 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability:
Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, pp. 185-206.
OECD, O., 2010. Factbook 2010: economic, environmental and social statistics. Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, .
PENROSE, E., 1959. TheTheory of the Growth of the Firm. New Yor k: John Wiley, 12, pp.
34.
PETERAF, M.A., 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource‐based view.
Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), pp. 179-191.
PETERAF, M.A. and BARNEY, J.B., 2003. Unraveling the resource‐based tangle.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), pp. 309-323.
43
PISSARIDES, F., 1999. Is lack of funds the main obstacle to growth? EBRD's experience
with small-and medium-sized businesses in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Business
Venturing, 14(5), pp. 519-539.
PORTER, M. and STERN, S., 2001. Location matters. Sloan management review, 42(4), pp.
28-36.
PORTER, M., Corporate strategy.
POWELL, W.W., KOPUT, K.W. and SMITH-DOERR, L., 1996. Interorganizational
collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology.
Administrative Science Quarterly, , pp. 116-145.
POWELL, W.W., KOPUT, K.W., SMITH-DOERR, L. and OWEN-SMITH, J., 1999.
Network position and firm performance: Organizational returns to collaboration in the
biotechnology industry. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16(1), pp. 129-159.
PRAHALAD, C. and HAMEL, G., 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Boston
(Ma), 1990, pp. 235-256.
PROVAN, K.G., FISH, A. and SYDOW, J., 2007. Interorganizational networks at the
network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of
management, 33(3), pp. 479-516.
RAISCH, S. and BIRKINSHAW, J., 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents,
outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, .
RAISCH, S., BIRKINSHAW, J., PROBST, G. and TUSHMAN, M.L., 2009. Organizational
ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance.
Organization Science, 20(4), pp. 685-695.
RAISCH, S., BIRKINSHAW, J., PROBST, G. and TUSHMAN, M.L., 2009. Organizational
ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance.
Organization Science, 20(4), pp. 685-695.
ROTHAERMEL, F.T. and ALEXANDRE, M.T., 2009. Ambidexterity in technology
sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), pp. 759-
780.
ROTHAERMEL, F.T. and ALEXANDRE, M.T., 2009. Ambidexterity in technology
sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization science, 20(4), pp. 759-
780.
ROTHAERMEL, F.T. and ALEXANDRE, M.T., 2009. Ambidexterity in technology
sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization science, 20(4), pp. 759-
780.
SAUNDERS, M. and LEWIS, P., 2012. Doing research in business and management: An
essential guide to planning your project. Financial Times Prentice Hall.
44
SCHUMPETER, J.A., 1934. The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits,
capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Transaction publishers.
SCOTT, J. and CARRINGTON, P.J., 2011. The SAGE handbook of social network analysis.
SAGE publications.
SIGGELKOW, N. and LEVINTHAL, D.A., 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer:
Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and
adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6), pp. 650-669.
SIMSEK, Z., 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding.
Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), pp. 597-624.
SIMSEK, Z., 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding.
Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), pp. 597-624.
SPITHOVEN, A., CLARYSSE, B. and KNOCKAERT, M., 2011. Building absorptive
capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 31(1),
pp. 10-21.
TEECE, D.J., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), pp. 1319-1350.
TEECE, D.J., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), pp. 1319-1350.
TEECE, D.J., PISANO, G. and SHUEN, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management.
TSAI, W., 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network
position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of
management journal, 44(5), pp. 996-1004.
TUSHMAN, M.L. and O’REILLY III, C.A., 2006. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing
evolutionary and revolutionary change. Managing innovation and change, , pp. 170.
TUSHMAN, M.L., REILLY, O. and CHARLES III, A., 1996. Organizations: MANAGiNG
EVOLUTIONARY. California management review, 38, pp. 4.
VAN DE VRANDE, V., DE JONG, J.P., VANHAVERBEKE, W. and DE ROCHEMONT,
M., 2009. Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges.
Technovation, 29(6), pp. 423-437.
VAN DE VRANDE, V., DE JONG, J.P., VANHAVERBEKE, W. and DE ROCHEMONT,
M., 2009. Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges.
Technovation, 29(6), pp. 423-437.
45
VAN DE VRANDE, V., DE JONG, J.P., VANHAVERBEKE, W. and DE ROCHEMONT,
M., 2009. Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges.
Technovation, 29(6), pp. 423-437.
VOLBERDA, H.W., 1996. Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in
hypercompetitive environments. Organization science, 7(4), pp. 359-374.
VOLBERDA, H.W. and LEWIN, A.Y., 2003. Co‐evolutionary Dynamics Within and
Between Firms: From Evolution to Co‐evolution. Journal of management studies, 40(8), pp.
2111-2136.
VOLBERDA, H.W., 1998. Blijvend Strategisch Vernieuwen: concurreren in de 21e eeuw.
Kluwer.
WANG, C.L., SENARATNE, C. and RAFIQ, M., 2014. Success Traps, Dynamic Capabilities
and Firm Performance. British Journal of Management, .
WASSERMAN, S., 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge
university press.
WERNERFELT, B., 1984. A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 5(2), pp. 171-180.
ZAHEER, A., GULATI, R. and NOHRIA, N., 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic
Management Journal, 21(3), pp. 203.
ZAHRA, S.A. and GEORGE, G., 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization,
and extension. Academy of management review, 27(2), pp. 185-203.
ZENG, S.X., XIE, X. and TAM, C.M., 2010. Relationship between cooperation networks and
innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), pp. 181-194.
46
Appendix. Questionnaire Dependent variable Innovative Ambidexterity
Exploratory innovation (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al. 2006)
(1 = strongly disagree ; 7 = strongly agree)
23) Our organization accepts demands that go beyond existing products and services.
24) We commercialize products and services that are completely new to our organization.
25) We frequently utilize new opportunities in new markets.
26) Our organization regularly uses new distribution channels.
Exploitative innovation (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, Frans AJ et al. 2006)
(1 = strongly disagree ; 7 = strongly agree)
27) We frequently make small adjustments to our existing products and services.
28) We improve our provision’s efficiency of products and services.
29) We increase economies of scales in existing markets.
30) Our organization expands services for existing clients.
Independent variable Absorptive Capabilities (1 = strongly disagree ; 7 = strongly agree)
31) This firm has the necessary skills to implement newly acquired knowledge
32) This firm has the competences to transform the newly acquired knowledge
33) This firm has the competences to use the newly acquired knowledge
Orginal Source: (Wang, Senaratne et al. 2014)
Independent variable External Networks (1 = strongly disagree ; 7 = strongly agree)
34) Extent of your firm have cooperated with customers and client
35) Extent of your firm have cooperated with suppliers
36) Extent of your firm have cooperated with competitors/rivals
37) Extent of your firm have cooperated with government agencies
38) Extent of your firm have cooperated with industrial associations
39) Extent of your firm have cooperated with venture capital organizations
40) Extent of your firm have cooperated with universities
41) Extent of your firm have cooperated with research institutions
Using the measures for knowledge networks of (Zeng, Xie et al. 2010)
Control Variables
42) Firm size
43) Firm age
44) Firm industry
47
Appendix. Descriptives Firm’s Industry and Age
In which industry are you?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 6 3.5 3.5 3.5
Mining and quarrying 1 .6 .6 4.0
Industry 21 12.1 12.1 16.2
Production, distribution and trading of electricity, natural gas,
steam and air conditioning supply 3 1.7 1.7 17.9
Construction Industry 11 6.4 6.4 24.3
Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles 7 4.0 4.0 28.3
Transportation and warehousing 6 3.5 3.5 31.8
Accommodation, food and beverage delivery 7 4.0 4.0 35.8
Information and communication 14 8.1 8.1 43.9
Financial institutions 6 3.5 3.5 47.4
Rental of and trade in real estate 4 2.3 2.3 49.7
Advising, research and other specialist business services 31 17.9 17.9 67.6
Lease of movable property and other business services 2 1.2 1.2 68.8
Public administration, public services and compulsory social security 7 4.0 4.0 72.8
Education 6 3.5 3.5 76.3
Health and social work 13 7.5 7.5 83.8
Culture, sport and recreation 8 4.6 4.6 88.4
Other services 20 11.6 11.6 100.0
Total 173 100.0 100.0
How many years does the firm you work for exists?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 - 5 years 14 8.1 8.1 8.1
6 - 14 years 25 14.5 14.5 22.5
15 - 49 years 60 34.7 34.7 57.2
50+ 74 42.8 42.8 100.0
Total 173 100.0 100.0
48
Appendix. Reliability measures
Innovative Ambidexterity
Cronbach’s Alpha=.843 Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Our organization accepts demands that go beyond existing products and services .829
We commercialize products and services that are completely new to our organization .820
We frequently utilize new opportunities in new markets .812
Our organization regularly uses new distribution channels .806
We frequently make small adjustments to our existing products and services. .853
We improve our provision’s efficiency of products and services .825
We increase economies of scales in existing markets .821
Our organization expands services for existing clients .822
Absorptive capacity
Cronbach’s Alpha=.934 Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Implement new information .962
Transform new information .876
Use new information .875
External Networking
Cronbach’s Alpha=.724 Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Customers .725
Suppliers .715
Competitators .716
Governemental organisations .673
Industrial associations .687
Universities .650
Research institutes .646
Investors .737
49
External Networking
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Customers 1 7 5.98 .931 -1.586 .185 5.053 .367
Suppliers 1 7 5.61 1.283 -1.718 .185 3.385 .367
Competitators 1 7 3.67 1.678 .002 .185 -1.078 .367
Governemental organisations 1 7 5.11 1.648 -.896 .185 -.071 .367
Industrial associations 1 7 5.03 1.480 -1.008 .185 .598 .367
Universities 1 7 4.18 1.861 -.402 .185 -1.101 .367
Research institutes 1 7 4.33 1.852 -.437 .185 -1.013 .367
Investors 1 7 4.07 1.967 -.149 .185 -1.230 .367
External Networking 1 7 4.75 .946 -.769 .185 1.330 .367
Innovative Ambidexterity
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std.
Error
Our organization accepts demands
that go beyond existing products
and services.
1 7 5.36 1.330 -.980 .185 .677 .367
We commercialize products and
services that are completely new to
our organization.
1 7 4.41 1.635 -.190 .185 -.952 .367
We frequently utilize new
opportunities in new markets. 1 7 4.94 1.585 -.807 .185 -.164 .367
Our organization regularly uses
new distribution channels. 1 7 4.42 1.537 -.269 .185 -.473 .367
We frequently make small
adjustments to our existing
products and services.
1 7 5.40 1.165 -1.091 .185 1.723 .367
We improve our provision’s
efficiency of products and services. 1 7 5.15 1.294 -.918 .185 .630 .367
We increase economies of scales
in existing markets. 1 7 4.73 1.373 -.480 .185 -.026 .367
Our organization expands services
for existing clients. 1 7 5.46 1.179 -1.202 .185 1.937 .367
Innovative Ambidexterity 1 7 5.12 1.341 -.906 .185 .236 .367
50
Absorptive Capacity
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Implement new information 1 7 5.05 1.478 -.890 .185 -.047 .367
Transform new information 1 7 5.12 1.415 -.877 .185 .126 .367
Use new information 1 7 5.18 1.384 -.859 .185 .132 .367
Absorptive Capacity 1 7 5.12 1.341 -.906 .185 .236 .367
51
Appendix: Moderation Mediation Analyses
Outcome: Absorptive Capacity
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.3508 .1231 4.6885 5.0000 167.0000 .0005
Model
coeff
se
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
Constant 4.3116 1.1359 3.7959 .0002 2.0691 6.5541
Extnetwo .2522 .1954 1.2906 .1986 -.1336 .6380
MKBTOT -3.9785 3.4523 -1.1524 .2508 -10.7943 2.8374
Int_1 .9194 .6940 1.3248 .1871 -.4508 2.2895
CV4 -.0160 .0178 -.8984 .3703 -.0513 .0192
CV6 -.0842 .1220 -.6900 .4912 -.3250 .1566
int_1 Extnetwo X MKBTOT
Outcome: Innovative Ambidexterity
Model Summary
R R-sq F df1 df2 p
.5631 .3171 12.8468 6.0000 166.0000 .0000
Model
coeff
se
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
Constant 1.3746 .7535 1.8242 .0699 -.1132 2.8624
AbsCap .2460 .0493 4.9947 .0000 .1488 .3433
Extnetwo .5024 .1250 4.0192 .0001 .2556 .7492
MKBTOT 4.7519 2.2062 2.1539 .0327 .3961 9.1077
Int_2 -.7838 .4441 -1.7650 .0794 -1.6605 .0930
CV4 -.0144 .0144 -1.2650 .2076 -.0369 .0081
CV6 -.0255 .0777 -.3279 .7434 -.1790 .1280
int_2 Extnetwo X MKBTOT
Conditional direct effect
MKBTOT Effect SE T P LLCI ULCI
Large (.000) .5024 .1250 4.0192 0001 .2556 .7492
SME (.333) .2412 0830 2.9048 .0042 .0772 .4051
Conditional indirect effect
Mediator MKBTOT Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
AbsCap Large (.000) .0620 .0497 -.0207 .1796
AbsCap SME (.333) .1374 .0520 .0549 .2698
