Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Managing technological distance in internal and external collaborations: absorptive capacity routines and social integration for innovation

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While high technological distance to project partners outside of the established value chain can positively influence innovation performance, project goals can only be achieved if the social integration of project members is improved in terms of coordination and communication. This paper draws on embeddedness and absorptive capacity literature to explore how social integration mechanisms translate into different learning outcomes in distant collaborations within and across organizational boundaries. Drawing upon expert interviews with project members as our primary source of data, we conducted an in-depth multiple case study analysis of a number of inter-organizational projects. Our findings indicate that the effect of different types of social integration mechanisms on learning outcomes also affect the ability to bridge distances in process and product technology. Moreover, they suggest that it is not just the extent, but also the interplay of social integration mechanisms surrounding internal and external absorptive capacity routines that enable project members to engage in the exploration, transformation and exploitation of distant knowledge. In examining how social integration mechanisms foster learning outcome in distant collaborations, our study contributes to the literature on absorptive capacity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(Adapted from Nooteboom et al. 2007)

Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In that context, internal partners refers to different project teams or team members within the same organization but not involved in the focal project or innovation activity itself and external partners refers to any team or actor outside the focal organization that is included or addressed during collaboration.

  2. Reminder: In the context of the study, internal partners refers to different project teams or team members within the same organization but not involved in the focal project or innovation activity itself, accordingly internal to the organization but not as part of the focal project team. External partners refer on the other hand to any team or actor outside the focal organization that is included or addressed during collaboration. Accordingly internal routines refer to routines, e.g. weekly meetings, with internal partners whereas external routines refer to routines, e.g. newsletters, with external partners (Lewin et al. 2011).

  3. The term foreign knowledge in this context refers to knowledge which originates from outside the respective focal organization and industry and therefore is foreign to the project team and its members (Enkel and Heil 2014; Shan et al. 1994).

References

  • Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Morris Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. K., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 149–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, R. M., Cambré, B., Korlaar, L., & Raab, J. (2011). Managing the project learning paradox: A set-theoretic approach toward project knowledge transfer. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 494–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, V., Ebers, M., & Maurer, I. (2013). Learning in project-based organizations: The role of project teams’ social capital for overcoming barriers to learning. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 239–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2011). The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy, 40(1), 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 157–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bröring, S., & Leker, J. (2007). Industry convergence and its implications for the front end of innovation: A problem of absorptive capacity. Creativity & Innovation Management, 16(2), 165–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. J. (1998). Do internal departmental relationships influence buyers’ expectations about external supply partnerships? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 13(3), 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: The constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management, 22(2), 119–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. T., & Cornelissen, J. (2011). Bridging corporate and organizational communication: Review, development and a look to the future. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 383–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. M. (1998). Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datta, A., & Jessup, L. M. (2013). Looking beyond the focal industry and existing technologies for radical innovations. Technovation, 33(10), 355–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingler, A., & Enkel, E. (2016). Socialization and innovation: Insights from collaboration across industry boundaries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 109, 50–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebers, M., & Maurer, I. (2014). Connections count: How relational embeddedness and relational empowerment foster absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 43(2), 318–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkjaer, B. (2003). Social learning theory: Learning as participation in social processes Malden. MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enkel, E., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Creative imitation: exploring the case of cross-industry innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 256–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enkel, E., & Heil, S. (2014). Preparing for distant collaboration: Antecedents to potential absorptive capacity in cross-industry innovation. Technovation, 34(4), 242–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, H. M., Brown, J., Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., De Vaughn, M., & Kanfer, A. (2002). Mobilizing knowledge in interorganizational alliances. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fong, P. S., & Lung, B. W. (2007). Interorganizational teamwork in the construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(2), 157–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37(10), 1717–1731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubbins, C., & Dooley, L. (2014). Exploring social network dynamics driving knowledge management for innovation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(2), 162–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3), 232–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T., Podolny, J. M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). So many ties, so little time: A task contingency perspective on corporate social capital in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 18, 21–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrand, B., & Biemans, W. G. (2003). The relationship between internal and external cooperation: Literature review and propositions. Journal of Business Research, 56(9), 735–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, H., & Ganesan, S. (2013). Does knowledge base compatibility help or hurt knowledge sharing between suppliers in coopetition? The role of customer participation. Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hotho, J. J., Becker-Ritterspach, F., & Saka-Helmhout, A. (2012). Enriching absorptive capacity through social interaction. British Journal of Management, 23(3), 383–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, F. (2012). On the role and interrelationship of spatial, social and cognitive proximity: Personal knowledge relationships of R&D workers in the Cambridge information technology cluster. Regional Studies, 46(9), 1169–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. D., Donohue, W. A., Atkin, C. K., & Johnson, S. (1994). Differences between formal and informal communication channels. Journal of Business Communication, 31(2), 111–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalogerakis, K., Lüthje, C., & Herstatt, C. (2010). Developing innovations based on analogies: Experience from design and engineering consultants. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(3), 418–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the notinvented-here (NIH) syndrome: A look at performance, tenure and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K. (2012). Keep searching and you’ll find: What do we know about variety creation through firms’ search activities for innovation? Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1181–1220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477–1490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. (2011). Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. Organization Science, 22(1), 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2014). A theoretical analysis of the role of social networks in entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 43(7), 1157–1163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2009). The effects of inter-industry and country difference in supplier relationships on pioneering innovations. Technovation, 29(12), 843–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A. L., Zucker, L., & Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7(4), 428–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H.-M. (2006). Interorganizational collaboration, social embeddedness, and value creation: A theoretical analysis. International Journal of Management, 23(3), 548–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Vahter, P. (2014). Dynamic complementarities in innovation strategies. Research Policy, 43(10), 1774–1784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, I., Bartsch, V., & Ebers, M. (2011). The value of intra-organizational social capital: How it fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth. Organization Studies, 32(2), 157–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., Qian, Y., & Roberts, J. (1991). Complementarities, momentum, and the evolution of modern manufacturing. The American Economic Review, 81(2), 84–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (1992). Towards a dynamic theory of transactions. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2(4), 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (1999). Inter-firm alliances: Analysis and design. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B., van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7), 1016–1034.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwels, P., & Matthyssens, P. (2004). The architecture of multiple case study research in international business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paxson, M. C., Dillman, D. A., & Tarnai, J. (1995). Improving response to business mail surveys. In B. G. Cox, D. A. Binder, B. N. Chinnappa, A. Christianson, M. J. Colledge, & P. S. Kott (Eds.), From business survey methods (pp. 303–316). New York: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118150504.ch17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petruzzelli, A. M. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31(7), 309–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, C. C. (2010). A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 890–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phene, A., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., & Marsh, L. (2006). Breakthrough innovations in the US biotechnology industry: The effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 369–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (1992). “Casing” and the process of social research. In C. Ragin & H. Becker (Eds.), From what is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2001). The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin, J. W. (2000). Imitation of complex strategies. Management Science, 46(6), 824–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin, J. W. (2001). Reproducing knowledge: Replication without imitation at moderate complexity. Organization Science, 12(3), 274–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. (2003). Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6), 751–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 369–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A., Vidal, P., Ployhart, R. E., & Marangoni, A. (2003). Learning by doing something else: Variation, relatedness, and the learning curve. Management Science, 49(1), 39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, M. (2003). Pathways of relevance: Exploring inflows of knowledge into subunits of multinational corporations. Organization Science, 14(4), 440–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, A. (2009). Learning from broadcasts of project participation: Selection of second-tier actors during project-venture formation in the movie industry, 1931–40. Strategic Organization, 7(2), 137–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5), 387–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheremata, W. A. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. The Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 389–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, T.-H., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new-product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 346–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J.-C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B., & Lancaster, R. (2003). Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science, 49(4), 383–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931–951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8(2), 109–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuyts, S., Colombo, M. G., Dutta, S., & Nooteboom, B. (2005). Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58(2), 277–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao, Z., Yang, Z., Fisher, G. J., Ma, C., & Fang, E. E. (2013). Knowledge complementarity, knowledge absorption effectiveness, and new product performance: The exploration of international joint ventures in China. International Business Review, 22(1), 216–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • ZEW. (2011). ZEW branchenreport innovationen: Maschinenbau. Mannheim: Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforderung GmbH (ZEW).

  • Zollo, M., Reuer, J. J., & Singh, H. (2002). Interorganizational routines and performance in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 13(6), 701–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. (1994). Intellectual capital and the firm: The technology of geographically localized knowledge spillovers. Working Paper No. 4946. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research project was financially supported by the German Federation of Industrial Research Associations (AiF) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy. The funding source had no involvement in the conduct of the research and preparation of the article as well as the decision to submit this article to Journal of Technology Transfer. Funding was provided by Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschungsvereinigungen “Otto von Guericke” e.V. (AiF) (Grant No. IGF-Nr. 17975 N).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dr. Manfred Bischoff Institute of Innovation Management of Airbus Group, Zeppelin University, Am Seemooser Horn 20, 88045, Friedrichshafen, Germany

    Ellen Enkel

  2. ZF Friedrichshafen AG, 88038, Friedrichshafen, Germany

    Annika Groemminger

  3. Deloitte Consulting GmbH, The Deloitte Garage, Rosenheimer Platz 4, 81669, Munich, Germany

    Sebastian Heil

Authors
  1. Ellen Enkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annika Groemminger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebastian Heil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annika Groemminger.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Enkel, E., Groemminger, A. & Heil, S. Managing technological distance in internal and external collaborations: absorptive capacity routines and social integration for innovation. J Technol Transf 43, 1257–1290 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9557-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9557-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation