4.7 Article

Inter-organizational knowledge acquisition and firms' radical innovation: A moderated mediation analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
Volume 90, Issue -, Pages 295-306

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.038

Keywords

Inter-organizational knowledge acquisition; Realized absorptive capacity; Knowledge ambiguity; Radical innovation

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71472118, 71772118]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Inter-organizational knowledge acquisition has become an increasingly important strategy for firms to improve their levels of innovation. Building upon the knowledge-based view (KBV) and the organizational learning perspective, and using data from 376 high-tech Chinese firms, we examine the underlying mediating mechanisms and contextual conditions in the relationship between inter-organizational knowledge acquisition and firms' radical innovation. Our results demonstrate that inter-organizational knowledge acquisition has a significant positive impact on firms' radical innovation. We also find that realized absorptive capacity mediates the relationship between inter-organizational knowledge acquisition and firms' radical innovation. Moreover, we discover that knowledge ambiguity negatively moderates both the direct and indirect effects of inter-organizational knowledge acquisition on firms' radical innovation through realized absorptive capacity. Our findings contribute to open innovation research by discussing the mediating mechanisms of how inter-organizational knowledge acquisition can be converted to firm innovation via realized absorptive capacity. Our results also provide fine-grained insight into the contingent role of knowledge ambiguity, and how its interaction with interorganizational knowledge acquisition and realized absorptive capacity can have profound effects on firms' innovativeness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available