4.6 Article

Absorbing knowledge from supply-chain, industry and science: The distinct moderating role of formal liaison devices on new product development and novelty

期刊

INDUSTRIAL MARKETING MANAGEMENT
卷 47, 期 -, 页码 75-85

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.036

关键词

External search; Knowledge integration; Product innovation; Novelty; Absorptive capacity

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [ECO2009-12405]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [ECO2012-38190]
  3. Programa Nacional para la Formacion del Profesorado Universitario (FPU) of the Spanish Ministry of Education [AP2008-00420]
  4. Programa de Ayudas para Estancias Breves del Programa de Formacion de Profesorado Universitario [EDU/2394/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Building on open innovation literature and recent developments within absorptive capacity research, this paper addresses if the use of formal liaison devices by firms differently influences the effects of external knowledge acquisition from suppliers, customers, competitors and universities on new product development and novelty of new products. The results of a survey of 248 Spanish industrial high-tech firms show that whereas the use of these mechanisms positively moderates the relationship between knowledge acquisition from suppliers and competitors and new product development, they negatively moderate the effect of knowledge acquisition from universities and have no effect on knowledge acquired from customers. On the other hand, the use of these devices negatively moderates the relationship between knowledge acquisition from suppliers and novelty of new products, and has no effect on the knowledge acquired from customers, competitors and universities. Moreover, knowledge acquisition from universities has a direct negative effect on novelty. Contribution of these findings to open innovation and absorptive capacity research is discussed. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据