Specialized Search and Innovation Performance – Evidence Across Europe

Searching for external knowledge has frequently been characterized as crucial for firm success. However, little is known about how the direction of search strategies influences innovation performance. In this paper, we argue that firms need to specialize their search strategy and that its effectiveness is moderated by R&D investments and potential knowledge spillovers from a firm's environment. Based on a sample of more than 5,000 firms from five European countries, our results show that being open for innovation generally pays off. However, both moderating factors have a crucial role to play: On the one hand, in-house R&D investments are most effective when combined with a market-oriented search strategy. On the other hand, a technologically advanced environment requires firms to reach out to scientific knowledge sources in order to access novel knowledge and to enhance innovation performance. We develop targeted management recommendations based on these results.

[1]  S. Zahra,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension , 2002 .

[2]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth , 1979 .

[3]  M. Kotabe,et al.  Gaining from vertical partnerships : Knowledge transfer, relationship duration and supplier performance improvement in the U.S. and Japanese automotive industries , 2003 .

[4]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[5]  Chiara Criscuolo,et al.  Global Engagement and the Innovation Activities of Firms , 2005 .

[6]  R. Grant.  Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .

[7]  R. Katila,et al.  SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF SEARCH BEHAVIOR AND NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION , 2002 .

[8]  Howard E. Aldrich.  Organizations and Environments , 1979 .

[9]  W. Mitchell,et al.  The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market share and business survival , 1995 .

[10]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Innovacion disruptiva para el cambio social , 2006 .

[11]  W. Mitchell,et al.  Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia , 2000 .

[12]  Ulrich Kaiser.  An empirical test of models explaining research expenditures and research cooperation: evidence for the German service sector , 2002 .

[13]  S. Mullainathan,et al.  Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data , 2001 .

[14]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Co-evolution of Firm Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Forms and Combinative Capabilities , 1999 .

[15]  B. Kogut,et al.  Exploring internal stickiness : Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm , 2007 .

[16]  BoschFrans A. J. Van Den,et al.  Coevolution of Firm Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Environment , 1999 .

[17]  C. Bloch,et al.  Oslo Manual - Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edition: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data , 2005 .

[18]  J. Baum,et al.  STRATEGIC DECISION SPEED AND FIRM PERFORMANCE , 2003 .

[19]  A. Jaffe.  Real Effects of Academic Research , 1989 .

[20]  R. Katila.  New Product Search Over Time: Past Ideas in Their Prime? , 2002 .

[21]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Fortune favors the prepared firm , 1994 .

[22]  D. Teece.  Competition, Cooperation, and Innovation Organizational Arrangements for Regimes of Rapid Technological Progress , 1992 .

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

[24]  Margaret A. Peteraf.  The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view , 1993 .

[25]  A. Link,et al.  Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. , 2004 .

[26]  David G. Sirmon,et al.  Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box , 2007 .

[27]  G. Day.  The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations , 1994 .

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

[29]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[30]  Eric W. K. Tsang.  Transaction Cost and Resource-Based Explanations of Joint Ventures: A Comparison and Synthesis , 2000 .

[31]  M. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and the ge-ography of innovation and production , 1996 .

[32]  K. Arrow.  The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing , 1962 .

[33]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE IN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS , 2002 .

[34]  S. Zahra,et al.  Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis , 1995 .

[35]  G. Rao,et al.  Open Innovation , 2019, Strategic Decisions.

[36]  S. Zahra.  Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach , 1993 .

[37]  B. Lundvall,et al.  Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation , 2007 .

[38]  S. Mazzocchi.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative For Creating and Profiting From Technology , 2004 .

[39]  M. Nadiri,et al.  Innovations and Technological Spillovers , 1993 .

[40]  Nancy Gallini,et al.  The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform , 2002 .

[41]  K. R. Conner.  A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based Theory and Five Schools of Thought Within Industrial Organization Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm? , 1991 .

[42]  Boris Durisin,et al.  Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization , 2007 .

[43]  John Van Reenen,et al.  Patents, Real Options and Firm Performance , 2002 .

[44]  M. Gordon,et al.  PUBLICATION RECORDS AND TENURE DECISIONS IN THE FIELD OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1996 .

[45]  P. Romer.  Endogenous Technological Change , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[46]  M. Tushman,et al.  Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and the potential for schumpeterian innovation , 1998 .

[47]  J. Liebeskind,et al.  Keeping Organizational Secrets: Protective Institutional Mechanisms and their Costs , 1997 .

[48]  R. Puryear,et al.  Strategic sourcing: from periphery to the core. , 2005, Harvard business review.

[49]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[50]  Reinhilde Veugelers,et al.  In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[51]  Mark Dodgson,et al.  External Linkages and Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises , 1991 .

[52]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and recipient firm size , 1994 .

[53]  A. Jaffe.  Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms&Apos; Patents, Profits and Market Value , 1986 .

[54]  Mohan V. Tatikonda,et al.  External technology integration in product and process development , 2004 .

[55]  K. Pavitt.  Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change : Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory : Research Policy , 1984 .

[56]  K. Brockhoff.  Technological progress and the market value of firms , 1999 .

[57]  H. Gemünden,et al.  Technological interweavement: a means of achieving innovation success , 1992 .

[58]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[59]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[60]  Mohan Subramaniam,et al.  The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities , 2005 .

[61]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[62]  M. Paul,et al.  ENDOGENOUS TECHNICAL CHANGE , 1990 .

[63]  W. Sofka,et al.  Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low- and high-technology sectors in European countries , 2009 .

[64]  W. W. Muir,et al.  Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity , 1980 .

[65]  A. Link,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage In Informal University Technology Transfer , 2007 .

[66]  Oliver Gassmann,et al.  Managing customer oriented research , 2002, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[67]  M. Perkmann,et al.  University Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda , 2007 .

[68]  Réjean Landry,et al.  Sources of information as determinants of novelty of innovation in manufacturing firms: evidence from the 1999 statistics Canada innovation survey , 2005 .

[69]  E. von Hippel,et al.  Sources of Innovation , 2016 .

[70]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms , 2006 .

[71]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  Real Effects of Academic Research: Comment , 1992 .

[72]  M. Fischer,et al.  Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants , 2002 .

[73]  J. Liebeskind,et al.  Knowledge, Strategy, and the Theory of the Firm , 1996 .

[74]  K. Hatten,et al.  Further evidence on the validity of the self typing paragraph approach: Miles and snow strategic , 1995 .

[75]  E. H. Bowman,et al.  Strategy through the Option Lens: An Integrated View of Resource Investments and the Incremental-Choice Process , 1993 .

[76]  Robert A. Frosch,et al.  The Customer for R&D Is Always Wrong! , 1996 .

[77]  E. Levitas,et al.  Signaling the Strategic Value of Knowledge , 2004 .

[78]  A. Nerkar,et al.  Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry , 2001 .