Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

University-industry collaborations and product innovation performance: the moderating effects of absorptive capacity and innovation competencies

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

Abstract

While the performance implications of university-industry collaboration (UIC) have been the subject of extensive research, no study thus far has investigated the potential influence of absorptive capacity and innovation competencies on the relationship between UIC and product innovation performance. Based on a sample of 2061 German companies from two waves of the German Community Innovation Survey and using moderated multiple regression, this study examines these moderating effects and provides the following findings: (1) absorptive capacity in terms of internal R&D negatively moderates the relationship between UIC and incremental innovation performance and has no effect on the relationship between UIC and radical innovation performance; (2) absorptive capacity related to employee know-how has no moderating effect on the relationship between UIC and incremental innovation performance but positively moderates the relationship between UIC and radical innovation performance; and (3) innovation competencies exert no moderating effect on the relationship between UIC and incremental innovation performance but have a predominantly positive moderating effect on the relationship between UIC and radical innovation performance. In summary, our study provides relevant insights on the dynamics governing UIC relationships and provides evidence for potential negative effects of absorptive capacity in the context of collaborative R&D (substitution effect). Providing an in-depth analysis of UIC, this study offers insights for research in this field by explaining the variance in the outcomes of UIC. Moreover, our findings have the potential to aid practitioners (e.g., innovation managers, researchers, and governing and funding bodies) in their decisions concerning their involvement in UIC.

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.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27(5), 306–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aschhoff, B., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation—happy together? Review of Industrial Organization, 33(1), 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baba, Y., Shichijo, N., & Sedita, S. R. (2009). How do collaborations with universities affect firms’ innovative performance? The role of “pasteur scientists” in the advanced materials field. Research Policy, 38(5), 756–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbolla, A. M. B., & Corredera, J. R. C. (2009). Critical factors for success in university–industry research projects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 21(5), 599–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004a). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8–9), 1237–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004b). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B., & Sastre, J. F. (2015). Inter-temporal patterns of R&D collaboration and innovative performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 123–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, K., D’Este, P., & Neely, A. (2011). Gaining from interactions with universities: Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 40(1), 30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, S., & Lundin, N. (2012). University–industry linkages and absorptive capacity: An empirical analysis of china’s manufacturing industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21(8), 837–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caird, S. (1994). How important is the innovator for the commercial success of innovative products in smes? Technovation, 14(2), 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from belgium. The American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 35(4), 474–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1994). Fortune favors the prepared firm. Management Science, 40(2), 227–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozza, C., & Zanfei, A. (2016). Firm heterogeneity, absorptive capacity and technical linkages with external parties in Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 872–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crescenzi, R., Filippetti, A., & Iammarino, S. (2017). Academic inventors: Collaboration and proximity with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9550-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cricelli, L., Greco, M., & Grimaldi, M. (2016). Assessing the open innovation trends by means of the eurostat community innovation survey. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(03), 1650039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., & Link, A. N. (2015). Fostering university-industry R&D collaborations in european union countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 849–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295–1313.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Faria, P., Lima, F., & Santos, R. (2010). Cooperation in innovation activities: The importance of partners. Research Policy, 39(8), 1082–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, Jeroen P. J., & Freel, M. (2010). Absorptive capacity and the reach of collaboration in high technology small firms. Research Policy, 39(1), 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F., & Noel, J. L. (1986). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practices and principles. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 34(1), 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38(1), 96–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizio, K. R. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy, 38(2), 255–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fey, C. F., & Birkinshaw, J. (2005). External sources of knowledge, governance mode, and R&D performance. Journal of Management, 31(4), 597–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenz, M., & Ietto-Gillies, G. (2009). The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: Evidence from the UK community innovation survey. Research Policy, 38(7), 1125–1135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Zahra, S. A., & Robley Wood, D. (2002). The effects of business–university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(6), 577–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giunta, A., Pericoli, F. M., & Pierucci, E. (2016). University–industry collaboration in the biopharmaceuticals: The Italian case. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 818–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C., & Sofka, W. (2009). Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low-and high-technology sectors in European countries. Research Policy, 38(3), 495–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handfield, R. B., Ragatz, G. L., Petersen, K. J., & Monczka, R. M. (1999). Involving suppliers in new product development. California Management Review, 42(1), 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanel, P., & St-Pierre, M. (2006). Industry–university collaboration by canadian manufacturing firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 485–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2013). The role of proximity in university-business cooperation for innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(2), 93–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, K., Parejo, M., Bessant, J., & Perren, L. (1998). Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: A literature review. Technovation, 18(1), 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K.-F., & Yu, C. M. J. (2011). The effect of competitive and non-competitive R&D collaboration on firm innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(4), 383–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafouros, M. I., Buckley, P. J., Sharp, J. A., & Wang, C. (2008). The role of internationalization in explaining innovation performance. Technovation, 28(1–2), 63–74.

    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 

  • Keizer, Jimme A., Dijkstra, Lieuwe, & Halman, Johannes I. M. (2002). Explaining innovative efforts of SMEs: An exploratory survey among SMEs in the mechanical and electrical engineering sector in The Netherlands. Technovation, 22(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, W. (1996). Absorptive capacity: On the creation and acquisition of technology in development. Journal of Development Economics, 49(1), 199–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, H.-T., & Lu, H. P. (2010). Measuring innovation competencies for integrated services in the communications industry. Journal of Service Management, 21(2), 162–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koberg, C. S., Detienne, D. R., & Heppard, K. A. (2003). An empirical test of environmental, organizational, and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 21–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, T. (2008). The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university–industry linkages—an empirical study of tama in Japan. Research Policy, 37(8), 1224–1240.

    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 

  • Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., & Lyles, M. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12), 1139–1161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2016). University–industry collaboration and regional wealth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1284–1307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, S. H., Chen, C. C., Hu, D. C., Chung, Y. C., & Yang, M. J. (2016). Developing a sustainable competitive advantage: Absorptive capacity, knowledge transfer and organizational learning. The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9532-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libaers, D. (2015). Time allocations across collaborations of academic scientists and their impact on efforts to commercialize novel technologies: Is more always better? R&D Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/radm.12164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A capability-based framework for open innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1315–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindman, M. T. (2002). Open or closed strategy in developing new products? A case study of industrial NPD in SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(4), 224–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S. (2009). Introduction to econometrics (Vol. 4). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maietta, O. W. (2015). Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy, 44(7), 1341–1359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinich, L. 2005. Being open: Managing innovation. In Paper presented at the proceedings. 2005 IEEE international engineering management conference, 2005., September 11–13, 2005.

  • Matt, M., Robin, S., & Wolff, S. (2012). The influence of public programs on inter-firm R&D collaboration strategies: Project-level evidence from eu fp5 and fp6. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 885–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A. (2007). The impact of absorptive capacity on SME’s collaboration. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 653–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1991). Key characteristics of the large innovating firm. British Journal of Management, 2(1), 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., King, Z., & Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, 40(4), 539–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033–1065. doi:10.1093/icc/dtp015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition–the role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 154–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, T. (2006). Communicating firm competencies: Marketing as different levels of translation. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(8), 1032–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, T. (2010). Absorptive capacity—one size fits all? A firm-level analysis of absorptive capacity for different kinds of knowledge. Managerial and Decision Economics, 31(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Holleman, M., & Morgan, E. (2002). The “traffic” in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(2), 282–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souitaris, V. (2002a). Firm–specific competencies determining technological innovation: A survey in greece. R&D Management, 32(1), 61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souitaris, V. (2002b). Technological trajectories as moderators of firm-level determinants of innovation. Research Policy, 31(6), 877–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven, A., Frantzen, D., & Clarysse, B. (2010). Heterogeneous firm-level effects of knowledge exchanges on product innovation: Differences between dynamic and lagging product innovators. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(3), 362–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E. (2001). Educational implications of university–industry technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 199–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, G. N., Greis, N. P., & Fischer, W. A. (2002). Firm size and dynamic technological innovation. Technovation, 22(9), 537–549.

    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 

  • Tidd, J. (2006). From knowledge management to strategic competence: Measuring technological, market and organisational innovation. London: Imperial College Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Sharkey, T. W. (2006). Absorptive capacity: Enhancing the assimilation of time-based manufacturing practices. Journal of Operations Management, 24(5), 692–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. L. (2007). Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 251–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Beers, C., & Zand, F. (2014). R&D cooperation, partner diversity, and innovation performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 292–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. (1997). Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy, 26(3), 303–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woerter, M. (2012). Technology proximity between firms and universities and technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 828–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Arcisstr. 21, 80333, Munich, Germany

    Sebastian Kobarg, Jutta Stumpf-Wollersheim & Isabell M. Welpe

  2. Faculty of Business Administration, Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Schlossplatz 1, 09599, Freiberg, Germany

    Jutta Stumpf-Wollersheim

  3. Bavarian State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning, Prinzregentenstraße 24, 80538, Munich, Germany

    Isabell M. Welpe

Authors
  1. Sebastian Kobarg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jutta Stumpf-Wollersheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isabell M. Welpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Kobarg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kobarg, S., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J. & Welpe, I.M. University-industry collaborations and product innovation performance: the moderating effects of absorptive capacity and innovation competencies. J Technol Transf 43, 1696–1724 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9583-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9583-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation