Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 41, Issue 5, pp 1195–1234 | Cite as

Inter-organisational technology/knowledge transfer: a framework from critical literature review

  • Cinzia Battistella
  • Alberto F. De Toni
  • Roberto Pillon
Article

Abstract

This paper aims to provide, through a literature analysis, a solid theoretical foundation that allows identifying the critical factors for technology/knowledge transfer. The literature review allowed to summarize the main contributions collected, to identify the main critical factors for technology/knowledge transfer and to frame them in a simple framework, carrying out a rationalization and classification. We built a reference framework, called “model of technology/knowledge transfer”. The proposed structure considers six categories related to the actors involved (sources, recipients and intermediaries), the relationship between them, the object of the transfer, the channels and mechanisms and the reference context. The factors represent all the main parameters and levers to consider in the design and implementation of an activity of technology/knowledge transfer. This can direct also future research by deepening these factors or the relationship among them.

Keywords

Technology transfer Inter-organisations Literature review 
JEL Classification L2 O3 

References

  1. Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albors, J., Sweeney, E., & Hidalgo, A. (2005). Transnational technology transfer networks for SMEs. A review of the state-of-the art and an analysis of the European IRC network. Production Planning and Control, 16(4 SPEC. ISS.), 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldrich, H. E., & von Glinow, M. A. (1992). Business start-ups: The HRM imperative. In S. Birley & I. C. MacMillan (Eds.), International perspectives on entrepreneurial research (pp. 233–253). New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Almeida, P. (1996). Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the US semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45, 905–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amesse, F., & Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy, 30, 1459–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge (pp. 1–212). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage of firms. Organizational Behaviour Human Decision Processes, 82, 150–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Organizational learning curves: A method for investigating intra-plant transfer of knowledge acquired through learning by doing. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Autio, E., Hameri, A., & Nordberg, M. (1996). A framework of motivations for industry-big science collaboration: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 13, 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Autio, E., & Laamanen, T. (1995). Measurement and evaluation of technology transfer: Review of technology transfer mechanisms and indicators. Technology Management, 10(7/8), 643–664.Google Scholar
  13. Avenali, A., Battistella, C., Matteucci, G., & Nonino F. (2013). A mechanism for supporting collective innovation: The open contract-based challenge. Information systems and e-Business Management, 11(4), 541–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Battistella, C., & Nonino, F. (2012a). What drives collective innovation? Exploring the system of drivers for motivations in open innovation, web-based platforms. Information Research, 17(1), 513. Google Scholar
  16. Battistella C., & Nonino F. (2012b). Exploring the impact of motivations on the attraction of innovation roles in open innovation web-based platforms. Production planning and control, 24(4–5), 226–245 (Special issue “Collaborative Innovation”).Google Scholar
  17. Battistella C., & Nonino F. (2012c). Open innovation web-based platforms: The impact of different forms of motivation on collaboration. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 14(4), 557–575. Google Scholar
  18. Baughn, C. C., Denekamp, J. G., Stevens, J. H., & Osborn, R. N. (1997). Protecting intellectual capital international alliances. Journal of World Business, 32(2), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Baum, J. A. C., & Ingram, P. (1998). Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1980. Management Science, 44, 996–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bessant, J., & Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., & Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44(1), 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Braun, D. (1993). Who governs intermediary agencies? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy, 13, 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bryant, T. A., & Reenstra-Bryant, R. A. (1998). Technology brokers in the North American software industry: Getting the most out of mismatched dyads. International Journal of Technology Management, 16, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Callon, M. (1994). Is science a public good? Science, Technology and Human Values, 19, 395–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Canestrino, R. (2009). Il trasferimento della conoscenza nelle reti di imprese (pp. 1–208). Torino: G. Giappichelli Editore.Google Scholar
  27. Caputo, A. C., Cucchiella, F., Fratocchi, L., Pelagagge, P. M., & Scacchia, F. (2002). A methodological framework for innovation transfer to SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(5), 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Carlile, P. R., & Rebentisch, E. S. (2003). Into the black box: The knowledge transformation cycle. Management Science, 49(9), 1180–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cash, D. W. (2001). In order to aid in diffusion useful and practical information: Agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26, 431–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  31. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cohendet, P., Kern, F., Mehmanpazir, B., & Munier, F. (1999). Knowledge coordination, competence creation and integrated networks in globalise firms. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cottrill, C. A., Rogers, M. E., & Mills, T. (2010). Co-citation analysis of the scientific literature of innovation research traditions. Science Communication, 11(2), 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.Google Scholar
  35. Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B. (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20, 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Darr, E. D., Argote, L., & Epple, D. (1995). The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science, 41(11), 1750–1762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. 1998. Il sapere al lavoro, Etas, Milano, 2000 (edizione originale: Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998).Google Scholar
  38. De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113–127.Google Scholar
  39. De Toni, A. F., & Nonino, F. (2010). The key roles in the informal organization: A network analysis perspective. The Learning Organization, 17(1), 86–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. De Toni, A. F., Biotto, G., & Battistella, C. (2012). Organizational design drivers to enable emergent creativity in web-based communities. The Learning Organization, 19(4), 335–349 (Special issue “Learning and Knowledge for the Knowledge Society”). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. De Toni, A. F., Nonino, F., & Pivetta, M. (2011). A model for assessing the coherence of companies’ knowledge strategy. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 9(4), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Dixon, N. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  43. Dougherty, D. (1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations. Overcoming innovation to organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1120–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Englehardt, C.S., & Simmons, P.R. (2002). Creating an organizational space for learning. The Learning Organization, 9(1), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ferdows, K. (2006). Transfer of changing production know-how. Production and Operations Management, 15(2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  47. Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803–813.Google Scholar
  48. Flannery, W. T., Spivey, W. A., & Alter, W. A. (1994). A heuristic model of the technology transfer process in federal laboratories. Technology Management, 1(3), 94–100.Google Scholar
  49. Galbraith, C. S. (1990). Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high technology firms. California Management Review, 32(4), 56–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Garud, R., & Nayyar, P. (1994). Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Geisler, E. (1993). Technology transfer: Toward mapping the field, a review, and research directions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 18(3–4), 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gianiodis, P. (2014). A framework for investigating university-based technology transfer and commercialization. The Routledge Companion to Entrepreneurship, 14, 125–129.Google Scholar
  53. Gilbert, M., & Cordey-Hayes, M. (1996). Understanding the process of knowledge transfer to achieve successful technological innovation. Technovation, 16(6), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gilsing, V., Bekkers, R., Freitas, I. M. B., & van der Steen, M. (2011). Differences in technology transfer between science-based and development-based industries: Transfer mechanisms and barriers. Technovation, 31(12), 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Grosse, R. (1996). International technology transfer in services. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(4), 781–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hackman, J. R. (1969). Toward understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. Acta Psychologica, 31, 97–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management, 12, 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review, 40, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 718–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hong, J. (1999). Structuring for organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 6(4), 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Howells, J. (1996). Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Howells, J. (1999). Research and technology outsourcing and innovation systems: An exploratory analysis. Industry and Innovation, 6, 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Howells, J., Gagliardi, D., & Malik, K. (2008). The Growth and Management of R&D Outsourcing: Evidence from UK Pharmaceuticals. R&D Management, 38(2), 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hsieh, C., Ze, Y., Lu, L. Y. Y., Liu, J. S., & Kondrashov, A. (2014). A literature review with citation analysis of technology transfer. In 2014 Portland international conference on management of engineering & technology (PICMET), pp. 3202–3209.Google Scholar
  69. Ingram, P., & Simons, T. (1997). Inter-organizational relations and the performance outcomes of experience. Working paper, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  70. Inkpen, A. C. (2000). Learning through joint ventures: A framework of knowledge acquisition. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 1019–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kingsley, G., Bozeman, B., & Coker, K. (1996). Technology transfer and absorption: An “R&D value-mapping” approach to evaluation. Research Policy, 25, 967–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology”. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Kumar, J. A., & Ganesh, L. S. (2009). Research on knowledge transfer in organizations: A morphology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Landry, R., Amara, N., Cloutier, J. S., & Halilem, N. (2013). Technology transfer organizations: Services and business models. Technovation, 33(12), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lane, P., Salk, J. E., & Lyles, M. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1139–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31, 638–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lavie, D. (2007). Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1187–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lester, R. K., & McCabe, M. J. (1993). The effect of industrial structure on learning by doing in nuclear power plant operation. The Rand Journal of Economics, 24, 418–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2007). External technology commercialization in large firms: Results of a quantitative benchmarking study. R&D Management, 37, 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Liyanage, C., Elhag, T., Ballal, T., & Li, Q. (2009). Knowledge communication and translation—A knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3), 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Louis, M. R., & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Switching cognitive gears: From habits of mind to active thinking. Human Relations, 44, 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Lynn, L. H., Reddy, N. M., & Aram, J. D. (1996). Linking technology and institutions—The innovation community framework. Research Policy, 25, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Malik, K. (2002). Aiding the technology manager: A conceptual model for intra-firm technology transfer. Technovation, 22, 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mantel, S. J., & Rosegger, G. (1987). The role of third-parties in the diffusion of innovations: A survey. In R. Rothwell & J. Bessant (Eds.), Innovation: Adaptation and growth (pp. 123–134). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  87. McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Millar, C. C. J. M., & Choi, C. J. (2003). Advertising and knowledge intermediaries: Managing the ethical challenges of intangibles. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Morgan, E., & Crawford, N. (1996). Technology broking activities in Europe—A survey. International Journal of Technology Management, 12(3), 360–376.Google Scholar
  90. Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Nonino, F. (2013). The network dimensions of intra-organizational social capital. Journal of Management & Organization, 19(4), 454–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Toward a post-critical philosophy. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  96. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  97. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Provan, K. G., & Human, S. E. (1999). Organizational learning and the role of the network broker in small-firm manufacturing networks. In A. Grandori (Ed.), Interfirm networks: Organization and industrial competitiveness (pp. 185–207). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  99. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Reisman, A. (2005). Transfer of technologies: A cross-disciplinary taxonomy. Omega, 33(3), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Roth, J. (2003). Enabling knowledge creation: Learning from an R&D organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 32–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Saban, K., Lanasa, J., Lackman, C., & Peace, G. (2000). Organizational learning: A critical component to new product development. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(2), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Seaton, R. A. F., & Cordey-Hayes, M. (1993). The development and application of interactive models of industrial technology transfer. Technovation, 13(1), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sharif, N., & Ramanathan, K. (1987). A framework for technology-based national planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 32, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Shohert, S., & Prevezer, M. (1996). UK biotechnology: Institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries. R&D Management, 26, 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Stankiewicz, R. (1995). The role of the science and technology infrastructure in the development and diffusion of industrial automation in Sweden. In B. Carlsson (Ed.), Technological systems and economic performance: The case of factory automation (pp. 165–210). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Stock, G. N., & Tatikonda, M. V. (2000). A typology of project-level technology transfer processes. Journal of Operations Management, 18(6), 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Tether, B., & Hipp, C. (2002). Knowledge Intensive. Technical and other services: Patterns of competitiveness and innovation, 14, 163–182.Google Scholar
  113. 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 Review, 44(5), 996–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Turpin, T., Garrett-Jones, S., & Rankin, N. (1996). Bricoleurs and boundary riders: Managing basic research and innovation knowledge networks. R&D Management, 26, 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Uzzi, B. (1996). Sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations. American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Van der Meulen, B., & Rip, A. (1998). Mediation in the Dutch science system. Research Policy, 27, 757–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., & Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter and intra organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 830–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Boone, C. (2006). A resource-based theory of market structure and organizational form. Academy of Management Review, 31, 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Watkins, D., & Horley, G. (1986). Transferring technology from large to small firms: The role of intermediaries. In T. Webb, T. Quince, & D. Watkins (Eds.), Small business research (pp. 215–251). Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  122. Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing product development: Quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  123. Wolpert, J. D. (2002). Breaking out of the innovation box. Harvard Business Review, 80, 77–83.Google Scholar
  124. Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zhara, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cinzia Battistella
    • 1
  • Alberto F. De Toni
    • 2
  • Roberto Pillon
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Science and TechnologyFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBozen-BolzanoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Electrical Engineering, Management and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of UdineUdineItaly
  3. 3.Innovation FactoryAREA Science Park ConsortiumTriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations