Paradoxes and partnerships: a study of knowledge exploration and exploitation in international development programmes

Lannon, John; Walsh, John N.

doi:10.1108/jkm-09-2018-0605

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 123 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is clear that both firms' investment in exploratory R&D and exploitative R&D can generate new knowledge. Differences between the two pertain to whether the central goal of activities is developing knowledge along a novel learning trajectory that is markedly different from the old one, or along a firm's existing learning trajectory (Gupta et al, 2006;Lannon and Walsh, 2019).…”

Section: Organizational Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firm exporting and investment in exploratory and exploitative R&D

Kafouros

Yan

2020

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to investigate how firms’ internationalization activities through exporting influence their organizational learning. Specifically, this study examines how the level of exporting and geographic market scope impact a firm’s exploratory and exploitative R&D investment differently. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 7,055 firms in Spain during the period 2006–2011, the study uses regression analysis (generalized least squares random effects) to test various hypotheses. Findings Although exporting improves organizational learning, learning opportunities vary for different aspects of exporting. Specifically, the level of a firm’s exporting has a significant positive effect on its exploitative R&D investment, whereas geographic market scope of a firm increases its exploratory R&D investment. Practical implications The findings can aid in shaping policies and firms’ decisions pertaining to exporting and exploratory and exploitative R&D investment. As the findings indicate that, the determinants of exploratory and exploitative R&D investment are different, managers and policymakers, who aim at a specific type of R&D investment, should understand which exporting strategy they should pursue. Originality/value Prior research suggests that exporting improves organizational learning. This study extends this knowledge by showing that different aspects of exporting, specifically, the level of exporting and geographic market scope, drive different types of organizational learning.

show abstract

Section: Organizational Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firm exporting and investment in exploratory and exploitative R&D

Kafouros

Yan

2020

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Organizations complement their internal activities to seek for external knowledge, involving these providers in long-term relationships to perform functions beyond simple information retrieval and dissemination (Becker and Gassmann, 2006; Benassi and Di Minin, 2009; Lannon and Walsh, 2019; Sawhney et al , 2003; Steward and Hyysalo, 2008). Specially, consultancies exploit existing specialist solutions to come up with new managerial approaches to bridge the gap between technological opportunities and user needs (Bessant and Rush, 1995; Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; Khedhaouria and Jamal, 2015).…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-fertilization of knowledge and technologies in collaborative research projects

Piñero

Avilés

Feliu

et al. 2021

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to explore how the cross-fertilization of knowledge and technologies in EU-funded research projects, including serious games and gamification, is influenced by the following variables: multidisciplinarity, knowledge base and organizations (number and diversity). The interrelation of actors and projects form a network of innovation. The largest contribution to cross-fertilization comes from the multidisciplinary nature of projects and the previous knowledge and technology of actors. The analysis draws on the understanding of how consortia perform as an innovation network, what their outcomes are and what capabilities are needed to reap value. Design/methodology/approach All the research projects including serious games and/or gamification, funded by the EU-Horizon 2020 work programme, have been analyzed to test the hypotheses in this paper. The study sample covers the period between 2014 and 2016 (June), selecting the 87 research projects that comprised 519 organizations as coordinators and participants, and 597 observations – because more organizations participate in more than one project. The data were complemented by documentary and external database analysis. Findings To create cross-fertilization of knowledge and technologies, the following emphasis should be placed on projects: partners concern various disciplines; partners have an extensive knowledge base for generating novel combinations and added-value technologies; there is a diverse typology of partners with unique knowledge and skills; and there is a limited number of organizations not too closely connected to provide cross-fertilization. Research limitations/implications First, the database sample covers a period of 30 months. The authors’ attention was focused on this period because H2020 prioritized for the first time the serious games and gamification with two specific calls (ICT-21–14 and ICT-24–16) and, second, for the explosion of projects including these technologies in the past years (Adkins, 2017). These facts can be understood as a way to push the research to higher technology readiness levels (TRLs) and introducing the end-user in the co-creation and co-development along the value chain. Second, an additional limitation makes reference to the European focus of the projects, missing strong regional initiatives not identified and studied. Originality/value This paper has attempted to explore and define theoretically and empirically the characteristics found in the cross-fertilization of collaborative research projects, emphasizing which variables, and how, need to be stimulated to benefit more multidisciplinary consortia and accelerate the process of innovation.

show abstract

“…Our SLR reveals that a good storage process impacts the sustainability of the competitive advantage of social businesses. It also shows the difficulty in maintaining and reusing knowledge that has been brought about by non-governmental organisational partnerships during the phase of exploration into the phase of exploitation (Lanon and Walsh, 2020). One explanation of this failure is that social entrepreneurship is characterised by informal exchanges (Halme et al, 2012), a phenomenon that has collective and communitarian features (Wood and Bischoff, 2020; Nansubuga and Munene, 2020).…”

Section: Conclusion and Future Research Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does knowledge management explain the poor growth of social enterprises? Key insights from a systematic literature review on knowledge management and social entrepreneurship

Maâlaoui

Loarne–Lemaire

Razgallah

2020

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to present a contribution to the fields of knowledge management and social business. As the extant literature about knowledge management reveals the role of knowledge in the process of new venture creation, the authors argue that such literature can answer concerns and calls for further research on examining social entrepreneurship. This paper proposes several key insights for this purpose and argues that one key contribution of the literature on knowledge management to the field of social entrepreneurship is that it explains the poor growth of new social ventures. The authors also conclude the paper by explaining how the specificities of knowledge management among social businesses could create a new research agenda in the field of knowledge management. Design/methodology/approach Following the systematic literature review approach, this conceptual paper proposes a reflection that is based on the connection of two kinds of literature reviews as follows: a review on knowledge management applied to the context of new venture creation and a review on social entrepreneurship and its vision of knowledge. Findings The authors reveal that one key explanation of poor growth in new social ventures is not necessarily associated with a lack of resources, but rather an inefficient knowledge management process. Originality/value The first original point of the paper is that it links two sets of literature reviews that have hardly ever been addressed together, namely knowledge management literature and social entrepreneurship literature. Moreover, the paper reveals how knowledge management based on a “bricolage” approach could foster the growth of new social ventures.

show abstract

Paradoxes and partnerships: a study of knowledge exploration and exploitation in international development programmes

Cited by 22 publications

References 123 publications

Firm exporting and investment in exploratory and exploitative R&D

Firm exporting and investment in exploratory and exploitative R&D

Cross-fertilization of knowledge and technologies in collaborative research projects

Does knowledge management explain the poor growth of social enterprises? Key insights from a systematic literature review on knowledge management and social entrepreneurship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About