Leveraging Learning Behavior and Network Structure to Improve Knowledge Gatekeepers’ Performance

– The purpose of this paper is to investigate how universities' learning behavior (explorative or exploitative) and network structure (weak or strong inter‐organizational ties) can affect their capability to collect and diffuse knowledge, and thus to act as knowledge gatekeepers., – The research methodology is based on the longitudinal study (from 2000 to 2007) of three UK universities (University of Cambridge, London's Global University, and Imperial College London), located in the area of London and selected on the basis of their knowledge mobility. In particular, to evaluate the knowledge mobility for each university, the paper considers the collaborative R&D relationships established by each university, in terms of joint‐patents registered at the European Patent Office (EPO)., – The analysis has revealed that the universities' knowledge mobility is positively affected by both the explorative learning behavior and the establishment of strong inter‐organizational ties. Moreover, results have shown that an increase of the explorative speed can entail a less positive effect of the exploration on the universities' knowledge mobility, since they can become less able to consolidate and implement the acquired new knowledge., – On the basis of these results, the present research provides interesting implications. In fact, recognizing the importance of explorative learning mechanisms, universities should enlarge and diversify their competencies and technological bases in order to be more effective knowledge sources and gatekeepers. Nevertheless, this shift towards new technologies and scientific fields should occur gradually, for instance towards more similar and contiguous technologies, so guaranteeing the necessary strengthening of skills and capabilities. Referring to the universities' network structure, the research suggests the importance of strong inter‐organizational ties as mechanisms that enable the transfer of knowledge. Hence, universities should promote the formation of stable and long‐lasting alliances and collaborations for favouring the creation of a trustworthy environment where knowledge can be exchanged and innovations rise., – The study contributes to the existing literature on knowledge gatekeepers, identifying its main performance, measuring it, and analyzing the impact exerted by two factors, as learning behavior and network structure.

[1]  R. Pouder,et al.  Hot Spots and Blind Spots: Geographical Clusters of Firms and Innovation , 1996 .

[2]  Juan Alcácer,et al.  Location Strategies and Knowledge Spillovers , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[3]  R. Kahn,et al.  The Social Psychology of Organizations , 1966 .

[4]  Ray Reagans,et al.  Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range , 2003 .

[5]  C. Antonelli Collective Knowledge Communication and Innovation: The Evidence of Technological Districts , 2000 .

[6]  Karen R. Polenske,et al.  Competition, Collaboration and Cooperation: An Uneasy Triangle in Networks of Firms and Regions , 2004 .

[7]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[8]  Stephen B. Adams,et al.  Stanford and Silicon Valley: Lessons on Becoming a High-Tech Region , 2005 .

[9]  Maurizio Sobrero,et al.  Focal Firms as Technological Gatekeepers within Industrial Districts: Evidence from the Packaging Machinery Industry , 2005 .

[10]  Ron Boschma,et al.  Evolutionary economics and regional policy , 2001 .

[11]  Pamela R. Haunschild,et al.  Friends or Strangers? Firm-Specific Uncertainty, Market Uncertainty, and Network Partner Selection , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[12]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[13]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology , 2006 .

[14]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[15]  M. Tushman Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process. , 1977 .

[16]  T. Allen Managing the flow of technology , 1977 .

[17]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[18]  Arvind Parkhe,et al.  Orchestrating Innovation Networks , 2006 .

[19]  J. Knoben,et al.  Proximity and Inter-Organizational Collaboration: A Literature Review , 2006 .

[20]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Innovation and inter-firm linkages: new implications for policy , 1999 .

[21]  R. Nelson,et al.  American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry , 1994 .

[22]  Erik E. Lehmann,et al.  University spillovers and new firm location , 2005 .

[23]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[24]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[25]  K. Weick The social psychology of organizing , 1969 .

[26]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal Cognitive Distance and Absorptive Capacity , 2005 .

[27]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .

[29]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators , 2008 .

[30]  Y. Gingras,et al.  The place of universities in the system of knowledge production , 2000 .

[31]  Rosa Maria Dangelico,et al.  Knowledge gatekeepers and technology districts development: a system dynamics modelling , 2008 .

[32]  A. Zaheer,et al.  Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities , 1999 .

[33]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[34]  M. Tushman,et al.  External Communication and Project Performance: An Investigation Into the Role of Gatekeepers , 2011 .

[35]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  Academic research and industrial innovation , 1991 .

[36]  Alok K. Chakrabarti,et al.  FIRM SIZE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTRALITY IN INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY INTERACTIONS , 2002 .

[37]  H. Greve Exploration and exploitation in product innovation , 2007 .

[38]  Geoffrey G. Bell Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness , 2005 .

[39]  M. Bell,et al.  The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster , 2005 .

[40]  Andrew C. Inkpen,et al.  Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer , 2005 .

[41]  J. March Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[42]  R. Burt Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[43]  Dean M. Behrens,et al.  Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries , 2000 .

[44]  Alfred A. Marcus,et al.  EMBEDDED TIES AND THE ACQUISITION OF COMPETITIVE CAPABILITIES , 2005 .

[45]  A. Chandler,et al.  Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1994 .

[46]  D. Lazer,et al.  The Strength of Strong Ties , 2003 .

[47]  R. Boschma Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .

[48]  Peter J. Taylor,et al.  A Global ‘Urban Roller Coaster’? Connectivity Changes in the World City Network, 2000–2004 , 2008 .

[49]  Attila Varga,et al.  Local academic knowledge spillovers and the concentration of economic activity , 1998 .

[50]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[51]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[52]  Jean-Benoit Zimmermann,et al.  Clusters in the Global Knowledge-based Economy: Knowledge Gatekeepers and Temporary Proximity , 2008 .

[53]  Jan G. Lambooy,et al.  The transmission of knowledge, emerging networks, and the role of universities: An evolutionary approach , 2004 .

[54]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Competing for the Future , 1994 .

[55]  R. Veugelers,et al.  R&D Cooperation between Firms and Universities: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgian Manufacturing , 2003 .

[56]  Attila Varga,et al.  Local Academic Knowledge Transfers and the Concentration of Economic Activity , 2000 .

[57]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[58]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[59]  Rüdiger Wink,et al.  Gatekeepers and Proximity in Science-driven Sectors in Europe and Asia: The Case of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research , 2008 .

[60]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[61]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

[62]  Antonio Capaldo Network Structure and Innovation: The Leveraging of a Dual Network as a Distinctive Relational Capability , 2006 .

[63]  Anne L. J. Ter Wal,et al.  Knowledge Networks and Innovative Performance in an Industrial District: The Case of a Footwear District in the South of Italy , 2007 .

[64]  Maurizio Sobrero,et al.  Focal Firms as Technological Gatakeepers within Industrial Districts Knowledge Creation and Dissemination in the Italian Packaging Machinery Industry , 2005 .

[65]  E. Penrose The theory of the growth of the firm twenty-five years after , 1960 .