Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How do dynamic capabilities transform external technologies into firms’ renewed technological resources? – A mediation model

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How externally acquired resources may become valuable, rare, hard-to-imitate, and non-substitute resource bundles through the development of dynamic capabilities? This study proposes and tests a mediation model of how firms’ internal technological diversification and R&D, as two distinctive microfoundations of dynamic technological capabilities, mediate the relationship between external technology breadth and firms’ technological innovation performance, based on the resource-based view and dynamic capability view. Using a sample of listed Chinese licensee firms, we find that firms must broadly explore external technologies to ignite the dynamism in internal technological diversity and in-house R&D, which play their crucial roles differently to transform and reconfigure firms’ technological resources.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At a higher level, so-called “second-order” capabilities (Schilke, 2014) involve the learning mechanisms that allow firms to engage in “learning to learn,” a concept that is related to double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978). To avoid conceptual complication and confusion, we do not address the “second-order” capabilities in our empirical model.

  2. To check the robustness, we also used 1- and 2-year moving windows for all the estimation models. However, the results show no significant differences regarding the relationships among key variables. These complementary analyses are available upon request.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. 1989. Patents as a measure of innovative activity. Kyklos, 42(2): 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. 2003. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 1011–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. 2001. Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 197–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. 2009. What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management?. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1): 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyres, N. 1996. Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization. Strategic Management Journal, 17(5): 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. 1965. An introduction to cybernetics. Methuen: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. 2001. The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6): 625–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsley, D. A. 1980. On the efficient computation of the nonlinear full-information maximum-likelihood estimator. Journal of Econometrics, 14(2): 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Furr, N. R. 2007. What makes a process a capability? Heuristics, strategy and effective capture of opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1): 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. 2003. Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy, 32(1): 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., & Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: Complements or substitutes for innovative performance?. Technovation, 24(1): 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D., & Hikino, T. 1990. Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrashekhar, G. R. G. 2006. Examining the impact of internationalization on competitive dynamics. Asian Business & Management, 5(3): 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-J., Su, K.-S., & Marcott, W. 2007. Competitive tension: The awareness-motivation-capability perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., & Sun, C. 2000. Technology transfer to China: Alliances of Chinese enterprises with western technology exporters. Technovation, 20(7): 353–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, Y.-H., & Hung, K.-P. 2010. Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows. R&D Management, 40(3): 292–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Shihadeh, E. S. 1992. Statistical methods for analyzing collapsibility in regression models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 17(1): 51–74.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collis, D. J. 1994. Research note: How valuable are organizational capabilities?. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, J. E., & Bierly, P. E. 2006. Measuring technological capability and performance. R&D Management, 36(4): 421–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., & Foray, D. 1997. The economics of codification and the diffusion of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(6): 595–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B.-S. 2003. Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1/2): 39–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durand, R., Bruyaka, O., & Mangematin, V. 2008. Do science and money go together? The case of the French biotech industry. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12): 1281–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they?. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11): 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. 2009. Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4): 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H. 2003. Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25(3): 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, L. S., & Schatzkin, A. 1992. Sample size for studying intermediate endpoints within intervention trials or observational studies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 136(9): 1148–1159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Vega, M. 2006. Does technological diversification promote innovation?: An empirical analysis for European firms. Research Policy, 35(2): 230–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O., Bohlin, E., Oskarsson, C., & Sjöberg, N. 2007. External technology acquisition in large multi-technology corporations. R&D Management, 22(2): 111–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O., & Sjölander, S. 1990. The acquisition of technology and small firms by large firms. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 13(3): 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2): 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. 1992. The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94: 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. 2001. The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools. In A. Jaffe & M. Trajtenberg (Eds.). Patents, citations, and innovations. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A., & Griliches, Z. 1984. Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Economic and Political Weekly, 27: 909–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E. 1997. Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5): 339–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. 2007. Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. 2009. Understanding dynamic capabilities: Progress along a developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7(1): 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Clark, K. B. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. 1996. Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. Rand Journal of Economics, 27(1): 32–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbe, J. M. 2011. Negative binomial regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. 2010. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15(4): 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. 1986. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5): 984–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. K. N. 2002. ‘Learning-by-licensing’: R&D and technology licensing in Brazilian invention. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 11(3): 163–177.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katrak, H. 1990. Imports of technology and the technological effort of Indian enterprises. World Development, 18(3): 371–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, L., & Nelson, R. R. 2000. Technology, learning and innovation: Experiences of newly industrializing economies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7(5): 502–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmer, H., & Dowling, M. 2004. Licensing as a commercialisation strategy for new technology-based firms. Research Policy, 33(8): 1141–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5): 461–477.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leone, M. I., & Reichstein, T. 2012. Licensing fosters rapid innovation! The effect of the grant-back-clause and technological unfamiliarity. Strategic Management Journal, 33(8): 965–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X. 2011. Sources of external technology, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability in Chinese state-owned high-tech enterprises. World Development, 39(7): 1240–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., & Wu, G. 2010. In-house R&D, technology purchase and innovation: Empirical evidences from Chinese hi-tech industries, 1995–2004. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(2): 217–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. 1986. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73(1): 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, B.-W. 2003. Technology transfer as technological learning: A source of competitive advantage for firms with limited R&D resources. R&D Management, 33(3): 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, B. W., Chen, C. J., & Wu, H. L. 2006. Patent portfolio diversity, technology strategy, and firm value. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1): 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & White, R. S. 1997. The relative contributions of foreign technology and domestic inputs to innovation in Chinese manufacturing industries. Technovation, 17(3): 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li-Ying, J., & Wang, Y. 2015. Find them home or abroad? The relative contribution of international technology in-licensing to the ‘indigenous innovation’ in China. Long Range Planning, 48(3): 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li-Ying, J., Wang, Y., & Salomo, S. 2014. An inquiry on external technology search through patent in-licensing and firms’ technological innovations: Evidence from china. R&D Management, 44(1): 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li-Ying, J., Wang, Y., Salomo, S., & Vanhaverbeke, W. 2013. Have Chinese firms learnt from their prior technology in-licensing? An analysis based on patent citations. Scientometrics, 95(1): 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1): 83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matusik, S. F., & Hill, C. W. L. 1998. The utilization of contingent work, knowledge creation, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 680–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J. 2006. Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7): 601–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Boston: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. 1980. Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report. Economics Letters, 5(4): 377–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. 1997. The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not. Research Policy, 26(2): 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prencipe, A. 2000. Breadth and depth of technological capabilities in CoPS: The case of the aircraft engine control system. Research Policy, 29(7/8): 895–911.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. 2011. Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6): 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O. 2014. Second-order dynamic capabilities: How do they matter?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4): 368–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J., & Keil, T. 2013. What makes a resource valuable? Identifying the drivers of firm-idiosyncratic resource value. Academy of Management Review, 38(2): 206–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, F., & Rubenstein, A. H. 1989. External technology and in-house R&D’s facilitative role. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 6(2): 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, B. S. 1999. Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 45(8): 1109–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. 2008. Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output. Research Policy, 37(1): 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. 2009. Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(13): 1375–1394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological methodology. Sociological Methodology, 13: 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E. 2000. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8): 791–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. 1996. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1): 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. 2009. Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 689–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13): 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 2014. The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4): 328–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, K.-H., Hsieh, M.-H., & Hultink, E. J. 2011. External technology acquisition and product innovativeness: The moderating roles of R&D investment and configurational context. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 28(3): 184–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, K.-H., & Wang, J.-C. 2007. Inward technology licensing and firm performance: A longitudinal study. R&D Management, 37(2): 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Jin, P., & Yang, C. 2015. Relations between the professional backgrounds of independent directors in state-owned enterprises and corporate performance. International Review of Economics & Finance. doi:10.1016/j.iref.2015.10.011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Li-Ying, J. 2014. When does inward technology licensing facilitate firms’ NPD performance? A contingency perspective. Technovation, 34(1): 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Zhou, Z., & Li-Ying, J. 2013. The impact of licensed knowledge attributes on innovation performance of licensee firms: evidence from Chinese electronic industry. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5): 699–715.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 991–995.

    Article  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 

  • Zhang, J., & Baden-Fuller, C. 2010. The influence of technological knowledge base and organizational structure on technology collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4): 679–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3): 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by the social science (innovation management theme) research funding of the Sino-Danish Centre 2014–2015. The second author is grateful for support from the National Science Foundation of China (71302133), Youth Project of Ministry of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences Planning Funding(13YJC790154), Funding of Sichuan University (skqx201502), and the Key Research Base of Sichuan Social Science (Xq15B02).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DTU Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Kgs., Lyngby, Denmark

    Jason Li-Ying

  2. Business School of Sichuan University, Sichuan University, No. 29, Wangjiang Road, Chengdu, 610064, Sichuan, China

    Yuandi Wang

  3. School of Business and Management, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4.25E, UK

    Lutao Ning

Authors
  1. Jason Li-Ying
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuandi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lutao Ning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuandi Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li-Ying, J., Wang, Y. & Ning, L. How do dynamic capabilities transform external technologies into firms’ renewed technological resources? – A mediation model. Asia Pac J Manag 33, 1009–1036 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9469-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9469-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation