Absorptive capacity, co-creation, and innovation performance

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines the effect of absorptive capacity (ACAP) and co-creation on innovation performance (INN). Design/methodology/approach: We use survey data from Swedish and Norwegian companies (N = 1102) and establish a cross-national equivalence between Sweden and Norway. Findings: The subsequent structural model revealed interesting differences. For Sweden, co-creation fully mediates the effect of ACAP on INN, whereas for Norway, ACAP has a direct effect on INN with no mediation. Subsequent regressions including control variablesshowed that the structural model is reasonably robust. We conclude that, despite the many common national features conducive to innovation between these two countries, sufficient differences remain to create substantial variation in the innovation processes. Originality:The study presents a second-order model of ACAP that permits a unique test of cross country differences.

The significance of knowledge readiness for co-creation in university industry collaborations

“…Activities in which actors feel they can contribute equally with their expertise facilitates the development of knowledge readiness. In line with research describing the ability to identify and absorb knowledge (Dahlin et al, 2019;Mohammadi et al, 2009), our study view knowledge readiness as a precondition that facilitates the unfolding of actors' collective knowledge contributions in context, i.e., the co-creation of value and innovation (Frow et al, 2015;Greer & Lei, 2012). Furthermore, once established, knowledge readiness can, over time, increase the speed of knowledge creation in the region, e.g., by facilitating the development of new university courses that better suit the needs of the region or contributing to projects and research and thus strengthening regional knowledge creation.…”

“…Readiness, as a concept, is linked to individuals' and/or organisations' ability to absorb or manage knowledge to succeed in, e.g., change or innovation processes (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990;Mohammadi et al, 2009;Van Wijk et al, 2008) and their ability to identify and use knowledge in new ways (Dahlin et al, 2019;Kristensson et al, 2004). Our study points in particular to a lack of understanding about the contextual element of knowledge, as in tacit knowledge, as a barrier to knowledge integration between universities and industry.…”

“…Cosupervision takes time, which allows for an expansion of the cognitive space for innovation (Akaka et al, 2017;Christensen et al, 2017) and. Hence, facilitates co-creation and knowledge use, e.g., for future innovation (Dahlin et al, 2019;Kristensson et al, 2004;Magnusson, 2009).…”

“…Our study argues that creating knowledge readiness among academics and industry actors in these regions is an important contribution to this endeavour. For instant, knowledge readiness can broaden the scope of action for both industry actors and academics in terms of expanded opportunities for innovation and new research in the region (Akaka et al, 2017;Dahlin et al, 2019;Perks et al, 2012). In addition, fast-paced global knowledge changes mean that actors who are able to interpret, integrate, and use knowledge quickly are in a better position to be innovative.…”

Which intermediate import source is best for innovation in MNEs?

“…Thus, intense collaboration between the importing firm and its overseas subsidiaries supports knowledge sharing processes within the organization by establishing routines for knowledge exchange (e.g. shared norms, Bresciani and Ferraris, 2016) that leave minimal space for causal ambiguity (Ambos and Ambos, 2009). Moreover, the degree to which importing parties share the same organizational culture and value systems (i.e.…”