Communities of Practice versus Organizational Climate: Which One Matters More to Dispersed Collaboration in the Front End of Innovation?*

Dispersed collaboration provides many benefits such as members' closeness to local cultures and markets and reachability of talent worldwide. Hence, it is no surprise that dispersed collaboration is frequently being used by product development teams. A necessary but not sufficient condition for innovation performance is the sharing of tacit, non‐codified and explicit, codified knowledge by the team. Situated learning theory, however, predicts that tacit knowledge sharing will be largely prevented by “decontextualization.” Therefore, increasing usage of dispersed collaboration will decrease levels of tacit knowledge—crucial to innovation and organizational performance—in the business unit. This research investigates the moderating role of mechanisms believed to enable tacit knowledge transfer in the front end of innovation. Using data from 116 business units, the moderating role of communities of practice and organizational climate on the relationship between the proficiency of dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance is investigated. Encouragement of communities of practice is found to moderate the relationship between proficiency of dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance on the business unit level. More specifically, proficiency of dispersed collaboration is not related at all to front end of innovation performance in business units with low support for communities of practice; but a positive relationship exists in business units with high support for communities of practice. This study does not provide support for the moderating effect of organizational climate on the relationship between proficiency in dispersed collaboration and front end of innovation performance. However, supportiveness of climate has a significant direct effect on front end of innovation performance. The findings of this study suggest that managers should simultaneously invest in increasing proficiency in dispersed collaboration and supporting communities of practice. Either one by itself is insufficient. Because of its significant direct effect, managers should also nurture an open climate favoring risk taking, trust, and open interaction.     

The impact of earnings pressure on exploratory innovation

While earnings expectation has been shown to determine a firm’s investment decisions, the knowledge about how such expectation influences a firm’s investment horizon for innovation is still blurred. This study therefore addresses this research issue by examining the relationship between earnings pressure and exploratory innovation while investigating the moderating effects of cross‐rival effect and resource availability. By examining high‐tech industrial firms in S&P 1500 from 2000 to 2012, the results indicate that stock analysts, as information intermediaries between innovation firms and the capital market, impose pressure through earnings forecasts on firms’ exploratory innovation. Our findings also reveal that the earnings pressure‐exploratory innovation relationship can be mitigated when its competitors encounter a higher level of earnings pressure. However, a firm’s financial slack shows less significant association to moderate the earnings pressure‐exploratory innovation relationship. Possible explanations for the results in regard to their theoretical and practical implications are discussed in this study.     

Managing the Exploitation/Exploration Paradox: The Role of a Learning Capability and Innovation Ambidexterity

Some researchers have proposed that practices facilitating learning and knowledge transfer are particularly important to innovation. Some of the practices that researchers have studied include how organizations collaborate with other organizations, how organizations promote learning, and how an organization's culture facilitates knowledge transfer and learning. And while some have proposed the importance of combining practices, there has been a distinct lack of empirical studies that have explored how these practices work together to facilitate learning and knowledge transfer that leads to the simultaneous achievement of incremental and radical innovation, what we refer to as innovation ambidexterity (IA). Yet, a firm's ability to combine these practices into a learning capability is an important means of enabling them to foster innovation ambidexterity. In this study, learning capability is defined as the combination of practices that promote intraorganizational learning among employees, partnerships with other organizations that enable the spread of learning, and an open culture within the organization that promotes and maintains sharing of knowledge. This paper examines the impact of this learning capability on innovation ambidexterity and innovation ambidexterity's effect on business performance. The resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm is used to develop a conceptual foundation for combining these practices. This study empirically examines whether these practices constitute a learning capability by analyzing primary data gathered from 214 Taiwanese owned strategic business unit (SBUs) drawn from several industries where innovation is important. The results of this study make four important contributions. First, they demonstrate that the combination of these practices has a greater impact on innovation ambidexterity than any one practice individually or when only two practices are combined. Second, the results demonstrate a relationship between innovation ambidexterity and business performance in the form of revenues, profits, and productivity growth relative to competitors. Third, the results suggest that innovation ambidexterity plays a mediating role between learning capability and business performance. That is, learning capability has an indirect impact on business performance by facilitating innovation ambidexterity that in turn fosters business performance. This study also contributes to our understanding of ambidexterity literature in a non‐Western context, i.e., Taiwan.     

The architecture of coopetition: Strategic intent,ambidextrous managers,and knowledge sharing

The study investigates the significance of strategic intent, manager's ambidexterity, and knowledge sharing routines for firms in their quest to pursue coopetition. We utilize the resource-based view and the dynamic capabilities theory to ground our hypotheses. We test the hypotheses using the data collected from 313 firms that engage in coopetition relationships through an online survey. The findings forward knowledge sharing and ambidextrous managers as intervening variables, in that when complemented with knowledge sharing, a firm's strategic intent could better guide the firm's managers to pursue coopetition successfully. Findings further advocate that knowledge sharing complements to enable the relationship between a firm's strategic intent and its ambidextrous managers, as well as the relationship between strategic intent and coopetition. Furthermore, results also indicate that ambidextrous managers, with a skillset of a combination of exploration and exploitation, are positively associated to coopetition. Overall, the findings make important theoretical as well as empirical contributions to the coopetition and strategic alliance literature.     

Incremental and Radical Innovation in Coopetition—The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability

This study examines why some firms are better able than others to reap benefits from collaborating with their competitors in innovation. Whereas on the general level, collaborative innovation has been studied widely, and firm‐specific success factors in collaboration between competitors (i.e., coopetition) have not been exhaustively addressed. Earlier literature describes coopetition as a risky but potentially rewarding relationship in which sharing, learning, and protection of knowledge are recognized as the key issues determining the possible benefits and hazards. This study provides evidence of factors related to this, suggesting that the firm's ability to acquire knowledge from external sources (potential absorptive capacity) and to protect its innovations and core knowledge against imitation (appropriability regime) are relevant in increasing the innovation outcomes of collaborating with its competitors. This study also distinguishes between incremental and radical innovations as an outcome of coopetition, and provides differing implications for the two innovation types. The empirical evidence for the study was gathered from a cross‐industry survey conducted on Finnish markets. The data are analyzed with multivariate multiple regression analysis. The results of the analysis suggest that (1) potential absorptive capacity and appropriability regime of the firm both have a positive effect in the pursuit of incremental innovations in coopetition, and (2) in the case of radical innovations, appropriability regime has a positive effect, while the effect of absorptive capacity is not statistically significant. However, the results also indicate that there is a moderating relationship between these variables, in that the potential absorptive capacity is positively associated with creation of radical innovations within high levels of appropriability regime. These results yield important theoretical and managerial implications. As a whole, the results presented in this study provide new evidence on which types of firms can reap success in the challenging task of collaborative innovation with rivals. In the case of incremental innovation, a firm‐level emphasis on knowledge sharing and learning will positively affect the results of coopetition, as will an emphasis on knowledge protection. Thus, when incremental developments are pursued in coopetition, firms should not only seek to exchange knowledge to create value but also remember to secure the firm‐specific core knowledge within the firm's borders to stay competitive. On the other hand, when the firm is pursuing radical innovation with its rivals, the heaviest emphasis should be on protecting its existing core knowledge and also emerging novel innovations and market opportunities. Capabilities in knowledge acquisition are also beneficial in these cases, but the full benefits of knowledge exchange realize only when the firm's knowledge protection mechanisms are sufficiently strong, allowing for safe knowledge exchange between rivals.     

Where to search for process innovations? The mediating role of absorptive capacity and its impact on process innovation

While the potential of open innovation to develop product-related improvements through the use of external knowledge sources is undeniable, our understanding of how firms become process innovators remains limited. Distinguishing between product and process innovation is important, as insights gleaned from investigating product innovation may not relate directly to the study of process innovation. This study provides new insight into open innovation and absorptive capacity by proposing the mediating role of absorptive capacity – potential and realized – on the relationship between knowledge search from external sources and process-related innovation activities. We test our model using a sample of 171 auto component suppliers in Iran, and find evidence that the learning effects of external scanning increase when a firm learns how to better manage external searches in terms of external absorptive capacity routines. Our results indicate that, while knowledge search from value chain partners is related to process innovation, knowledge search from universities and other research organizations is not, and that potential absorptive capacity mediates the relationship between external knowledge search and process innovation. These findings shed further light on the relationship between a firm’s openness and its process innovation.     

Effects of Supplier and Customer Integration on Product Innovation and Performance: Empirical Evidence in Hong Kong Manufacturers

While the beneficial impacts of supplier and customer integration are generally acknowledged, very few empirical research studies have examined how an organization can achieve better product performance through product innovation enhanced by such integration. This paper thus examines the impact of key supplier and customer integration processes (i.e., information sharing and product codevelopment with supplier and customer, respectively) on product innovation as well as their impact on product performance. It contributes to existing literature by asking how such integration activities affect product innovation and performance in both direct and indirect ways. After surveying 251 manufacturers in Hong Kong, this study tested the relationships among information sharing, product codevelopment, product innovativeness, and performance with three control variables (i.e., company size, type of industry, and market certainty). Structural equation modeling with correlation and t‐tests was used to test the hypothesized research model. The findings indicate a direct, positive relationship between supplier and customer integration and product performance. In particular, this study verifies that sharing information with suppliers and product codevelopment with customers directly improves product performance. In addition, this study empirically examines the indirect effects of supplier and customer integration processes on product performance, mediated by innovation. This has seldom been attempted in previous research. The empirical findings show that product codevelopment with suppliers improves performance, mediated by innovation. However, the sampled firms cannot improve their product innovation by sharing information with their current customers and suppliers as well as codeveloping new products with the customers. If the adoption of supplier and customer integration is not cost free, the findings of this study may suggest firms work on particular supplier and customer integration processes (i.e., product codevelopment with suppliers) to improve their product innovation. The study also suggests that companies codevelop new products only with new customers and lead users instead of current ones for product innovation. For managers, this study has demonstrated that both information sharing and product codevelopment affect performance directly and indirectly. Managers should put more emphasis on these key processes, especially when linked with product innovation. Managers should consider involving their suppliers and customers in the early stages of design. Information sharing with suppliers is also important in product development. As suggested by this study, extensive effort on supplier and customer integration should be made to directly augment current product performance and product innovation at the same time.     

How Information Technology Assimilation Promotes Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation in the Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Firm Context: The Role of Contextual Ambidexterity and Knowledge Base

This research sheds new light on how information technology (IT) assimilation affects exploratory and exploitative innovation in the context of small‐ and medium‐sized firms (SMEs). This contextualization is important in establishing the boundary conditions for the theory, as well as generating specific managerial insights for SME managers. A sample of 248 U.K.‐based SMEs in the manufacturing industry demonstrates contextual ambidexterity (CA) mediates the relationship between IT assimilation and two types of innovation. This finding highlights that IT assimilation does not automatically promote innovation. Instead, IT assimilation represents a critical resource that enables the effective implementation of CA, which in turn affects innovation. This implies that SMEs cannot fully realize the potential of their IT assimilation and use it to enable innovation without implementing CA. Furthermore, this study differentiates between two different dimensions of knowledge base: knowledge breadth and knowledge depth. This study finds that knowledge breadth moderates the indirect IT assimilation–exploratory innovation relationship by influencing the effect of CA on exploratory innovation. Knowledge depth, on the other hand, moderates the indirect IT assimilation–exploitative innovation relationship by influencing the effect of CA on exploitative innovation. This finding implies that SMEs can benefit from their IT assimilation that enables them to engage in CA, which in turn allows them to perform innovation. However, it is apparent that the dimension of knowledge that SMEs hold internally can determine what types of innovation that they are able to perform.     

How businesses should govern knowledge-intensive collaborations with universities: An empirical investigation of university professors

In light of the high relevance of universities as sources of knowledge, university-business collaboration (UBC) offers significant opportunities for businesses with respect to making use of external academic research and innovation support. Unlike knowledge-intensive collaboration with other businesses, UBC has particularities which need to be considered, notably the role of professors as individual decision makers. Additionally, to assign intellectual property rights to knowledge and to reduce the danger of opportunistic behavior, mutually beneficial UBC requires adequate governance mechanisms. As previous research has not investigated the effects of governance mechanisms on knowledge sharing (knowledge combination, learning, and co-poiesis) and the achievement of joint goals in UBC, our empirical study covering 415 German professors examines these relations. We find a positive influence of relational governance and a negative influence of transactional governance on knowledge sharing in UBC. Regarding the influence of knowledge sharing on the achievement of joint goals, we find positive impacts of knowledge combination and co-poiesis and a negative impact of learning on the achievement of joint goals.     

Urban crowdsourcing: Stakeholder selection and dynamic knowledge flows in high and low complexity projects

Urban crowdsourcing is a new form of open innovation that aims to develop smart cities. Due to the heterogeneity of partners in urban planning, knowing the type of knowledge gained from each stakeholder at each stage of the crowdsourcing process needs to be understood for effective collaborations and innovative knowledge flow activation. Using a qualitative approach with experts involved in the Casablanca Smart City project, this research investigates complex multi-stakeholder ecosystems. More specifically, this study identifies and examines the role of external stakeholders at each stage of the innovation process, and the resulting dynamic knowledge flows that help improve the process of urban crowdsourcing in the development of smart city solutions. Depending on the complexity of the innovation project, findings identify three primary stakeholders (citizens, public authorities, and private and public firms) and three secondary stakeholders (NGOs, universities, consulting companies). Results show at which of the four steps of urban crowdsourcing they intervene. Furthermore, the findings reveal a dynamic learning environment composed of two knowledge flows (“learning with” and “learning from” stakeholders).     

Contingent contingency: Knowledge heterogeneity and new product development performance revisited

This paper re-conceptualizes the meaning of knowledge heterogeneity—an important but under-developed collective-level concept that influences innovation. The new conceptualization extends the construct of knowledge heterogeneity beyond the traditional assessments of variability in professional background. This research further explores the quadratic relationship between knowledge heterogeneity and new product development performance. Drawing on and synthesizing knowledge clarity and uncertainty avoidance literature to consider work context, the possibility of a positive quadratic, rather than a linear or a negative quadratic, relationship between knowledge heterogeneity and innovation is suggested. This relationship is explored using data collected from 128 new product development teams from companies in knowledge-intensive and innovation-oriented industries located in Taiwan. Results are discussed in terms of the hypothesized positive quadratic relationship. The outcome of the study is discussed in terms of the influence of the knowledge structure and cultural factors, which suggest potential contingent contingencies across different contexts.     

Knowledge sharing in heterogeneous teams through collaboration and cooperation: Exemplified through Public–Private-Innovation partnerships

According to literature on teams and group learning it is important for heterogeneous teams to share knowledge, through the use of different forms of interaction. However, little is known about how different forms of interaction influence knowledge sharing and secure progress during innovation processes. In order to achieve an increased understanding, literature concerning teams and group learning are integrated within a case study of Public–Private-Innovation partnerships (PPI). Specifically, the distinction between different forms of interaction, such as collaboration and cooperation is used to clarify how knowledge sharing and progress are influenced during innovation processes. Three PPI projects have been chosen due to the particularly challenging nature of their composition; consisting of heterogeneous members from both the public and private sectors with dissimilar logics. Overall, our findings point out that 1) those heterogeneous teams that are able to continually integrate their team members' heterogeneous knowledge through a balanced use of collaborative and cooperative interaction forms seem to secure progress during the innovation process, and that 2) those heterogeneous teams that are able to continually re-establish a shared knowledge base, when it has been challenged by a critical incident, seem able to achieve progress during innovation processes.     

When do they care to share? How manufacturers make contracted service partners share knowledge

Manufacturing firms that outsource customer-facing services, risk losing touch with their customers and thereby forfeit valuable market and customer-related knowledge. To maintain informed and competitive, the manufacturer's customer-facing service partners should engage in knowledge sharing and transfer their market knowledge and insight to the firm. Building on knowledge transfer and organizational learning theory, this study investigates how contractual and non-contractual (i.e., relationship) characteristics influence knowledge sharing behavior by service partners. The authors specifically distinguish between sharing exploitative knowledge (insights that help the manufacturing firm to refine current skills and procedures) and exploratory knowledge (insights that help the manufacturing firm to challenge prior approaches to interfacing with the market). Based on survey data from 70 relationship managers from a large multinational firm and partial least squares path modeling, results show that contractual incentives had a negative effect on exploratory knowledge sharing, but not on exploitative knowledge sharing. The level of contract specification and relationship quality positively related to both types of knowledge sharing. Relationship manager experience related positively to exploratory knowledge sharing, but not to exploitative knowledge sharing. These findings provide valuable insights on how (non-)contractual mechanisms can be used to manage knowledge sharing in outsourced services.     

知识存量、双元学习与企业绩效关系研究

知识是企业的战略性资源，是企业竞争优势提升的重要源泉，但关于知识如何影响企业绩效的内在机理尚不明晰。本文引入企业双元学习中介，探索并检验知识存量对企业绩效的作用过程。采用回归方法分析了223家科研技术类企业数据后，本文得出结论：（1）企业知识存量对企业绩效有着促进作用；（2）知识存量是通过作用于双元学习而对企业绩效产生影响；（3）企业规模在此过程中有着显著调节作用。本文研究为企业有效开展知识积累及双元学习活动提供启示。     

More Innovation with Less? A Strategic Contingency View of Slack Resources,Information Search,and Radical Innovation

This study investigates the nonobvious interrelationship between slack resources and radical innovation. While organizational slack and innovation literature has implicitly recognized a link between these constructs, at least two important aspects of their relationship have been overlooked. First, little attention has been paid to the mechanisms by which slack resources become beneficial for radical innovation. Drawing on information search and organizational learning theories, we propose distal search activity—searching for information outside the current knowledge domain of the firm—as a mediating variable between slack resources and radical innovation. Second, little consideration has been given to the strategic orientation of the firm as the context in which slack resources are deployed to enhance radical innovation. Adopting Miles and Snow's typology of strategic archetypes, we propose a moderating role of strategy in the slack resources–distal search–radical innovation chain of relations. We tested our hypotheses on a sample of Chinese high‐technology firms, using multiple informant survey data and regression analysis. Our results indicate that slack resources are positively related to radical innovation, and that this relationship is partially mediated by distal search. Thus, there appear to be two routes (one direct, one indirect) to transform slack resources into radical innovation. Further, moderation analysis shows that the effect of slack resources on distal search is strongest among analyzers, while the effect of distal search on radical innovation is strongest among defenders. In sum, our results suggest that analyzers are relatively more dependent on the amount of slack resources compared to other strategy types, that is, resource constraints would have a more negative effect on analyzers. We discuss theoretical and managerial implications of our study and conclude by suggesting future research opportunities.     

Resource allocation for open and hidden learning in learning alliances

A satisfying relationship between alliance members is important for the success of learning alliances, especially those in the Asia Pacific region. While learning alliances create conditions for firms to leverage each other’s knowledge, firms may be opportunistic and appropriate each other’s knowledge, and firms face a tradeoff because appropriation affects the relationship between alliance members. After reviewing previous studies on knowledge sharing in learning alliances, we differentiate firms’ learning into open and hidden learning, and argue that open learning contributes to competence trust, while hidden learning reduces goodwill trust, which consequently affects open learning. Learning uncertainty, introduced in this study, and learning benefits determine expected payoffs of open and hidden learning, which influence firms’ resource investment in them. This study also finds that behavior and output control are important moderators of the relationships between expected payoffs of open and hidden learning and the resources invested in them. Thus, this study advances our understanding of the tension between cooperation and competition and the learning dynamics in learning alliances. The solution to solving the knowledge sharing dilemma in learning alliances is to promote partners’ open learning and to restrain their hidden learning. Therefore, this study argues that, with open and hidden learning, implementing proper control measures and influencing partners’ learning benefits and uncertainties can settle this dilemma. Furthermore, this study classifies the relationships of learning alliances into four types and gives an explanation of why horizontal learning alliances are usually more competitive than vertical ones.     

Why and how knowledge sharing matters for R&D engineers

This research explored how and why knowledge sharing matters for R&D engineers by investigating the effects of knowledge sharing on R&D engineer's job performance and job satisfaction. Based on multilevel data of 242 R&D engineers from 55 teams, the results showed that the relationships between knowledge sharing and R&D engineer's job performance/satisfaction were mediated through individual learning and self-efficacy. Individual learning was a necessary step for knowledge sharing to transform into individual knowledge, which in turn enhanced individual level outcomes. At the same time, individual learning enhanced self-efficacy, which subsequently benefited R&D engineer's job performance and job satisfaction. Finally, individual learning was found to be strongly related to individual job satisfaction.     

Supplier market orientation and accommodation of the customer in different relationship phases

As customers' needs have changed rapidly, market orientation has become a more primary focus of marketing literature. This study explores the strategies market-oriented suppliers use to accommodate customer needs. In addition, because buyer-seller relationships proceed through phases characterized by distinct behaviors, this study explores the relationship between market orientation and accommodation strategies over the course of the buyer-seller relationship lifecycle. The results show that market-oriented firms use flexibility and relationship-specific adaptation as accommodation strategies. Also, three market orientation components (customer orientation, competitor orientation, and interfunctional coordination) relate differently to flexibility and relationship-specific adaptation during the relationship lifecycle. Finally, accommodation strategies significantly mediate the effects of the three market orientation components on customer satisfaction. Thus, market-oriented firms can satisfy their customers and avoid an overreliance on current relationships by emphasizing either flexibility or relationship-specific adaptations that correspond to the lifecycle of the relationship.     

Developing organizational agility in product innovation: the roles of IT capability,KM capability,and innovative climate

This study investigates how to leverage information technology (IT) capability to build organizational agility in the context of product innovation. A moderated mediating model is proposed from the capability‐building processes perspective. The data collected from 194 senior executives of firms in China show that knowledge management capability partially mediates the relationship between IT capability and organizational agility. Innovative climate also positively moderates the indirect relationship between IT capability and organizational agility in the context of product innovation. Discussion, implications, and direction for future research are offered at the end of this paper.     

Knowledge Sharing in Interorganizational Product Development Teams: The Effect of Formal and Informal Socialization Mechanisms*

Working collaboratively with suppliers is increasingly cited as a “best practice” in product development. The importance of sharing knowledge between buyer and supplier in this context has been well recognized, although comparatively little research exists on the interorganizational socialization mechanisms that facilitate it. The present research proposes and tests a theoretical model of the impact of formal and informal socialization mechanisms on the level of knowledge sharing within interorganizational product development projects and the subsequent effect on buyer firm performance. Results from this study of 111 manufacturing organizations in the United Kingdom largely support its hypotheses. It is revealed that informal socialization mechanisms (e.g., communication guidelines, social events) play an important role in facilitating interorganizational knowledge sharing, whereas formal socialization mechanisms (e.g., cross‐functional teams, matrix reporting structures) act indirectly through informal socialization to influence knowledge sharing. The results also show that interorganizational knowledge sharing is positively associated with supplier contribution to development outcomes, which, in turn, improves buyer product development performance and, ultimately, financial performance. Product development managers are encouraged to build social ties between interorganizational development teams to increase the flow of knowledge and to improve both product development outcomes and financial performance.