Absorptive capacity: measuring in SMEs

Absorptive capacity:

measuring in SMEs

University of Groningen, the Netherlands First supervisor: dr. ir. H. Zhou Second supervisor: dr. C.H.M. Lutz

Wordcount: 15.852

Absorptive capacity:

measuring in SMEs

University of Groningen, the Netherlands First supervisor: dr. ir. H. Zhou Second supervisor: dr. C.H.M. Lutz

Wordcount: 15.852

Abstract

Purpose – The objective of this research is to provide insights in how practitioners in SMEs

think absorptive capacity should be measured.

Methodology – A case study research of 8 SME owners/managers is conducted, in IT and the

hospitality industry. The case studies existed of semi-structured interviews and questionnaires.

Findings – Important findings of this study are that R&D related proxies and IT are not useful

for measuring the absorptive capacity of a SME.

Theoretical implications – The findings of this research can support scholars in developing

the absorptive capacity literature, so that the theories and measurement methods are applicable in SMEs.

Value – This study is a response to the gap in the absorptive capacity literature for SMEs,

specifically how absorptive capacity in SMEs should be measured. Furthermore, this study pays attention to the lack of consensus about the absorptive capacity definition, and non-knowledge intensive sectors which are more or less forgotten in the existing absorptive capacity literature.

Acknowledgements

I would like to use this opportunity to thank a few people who helped me during the thesis process:

 My fellow students of the master Small Business & Entrepreneurship for giving me tips and reviewing my thesis.

 The two owners/managers who helped me improving my interview and questionnaire by taking time for the pre-tests.

 My family and friends who helped me finding companies for my research.

 The participating owners/managers for their time and input during our conversations.  Last but not least, my supervisor dr. ir. H. Zhou for her valuable feedback.

And of course to all other people who are not mentioned but helped me during the process: thanks.

Hopefully you will enjoy reading my master thesis.

Gerli Meijerink

Table of content

1 Introduction ...6

2 Theoretical framework ...8

2.1 Definitions of absorptive capacity...8

2.2 Measurements of absorptive capacity ... 11

4.1.6 Company F ... 27 4.1.7 Company G ... 27 4.1.8 Company H ... 28 4.1.9 Decontextualization ... 28 4.2 Questionnaire ... 32 4.2.1 General results... 32 4.2.2 Individual statements ... 33 4.3 Combined ... 36 5 Discussion ... 37 6 Conclusion ... 40

7 Limitations and future research ... 42

References ... 43

Appendices ... 46

Appendix A: Interview guideline ... 46

Appendix B: Questionnaire ... 47

Questionnaire based on Cohen & Levinthal (1990) ... 47

Questionnaire based on Zahra & George (2002) ... 49

Appendix C: Scores questionnaire ... 51

1 Introduction

Absorptive capacity is a concept that got a lot of attention after the paper of Cohen & Levinthal in 1990. It can be defined as “the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends” (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). In the last 20 years the absorptive capacity literature has grown considerably, so that it has been one of the most important subjects in organizational research (Lane, Koka, & Pathak, 2006). But only a few studies have contributed to the absorptive capacity literature in a meaningful and substantive manner (Lane et al., 2006). Instead of discussing the underlying dimensions, absorptive capacity has become a taken-for-granted concept.

The concept is important because it is a significant element for innovation and for the competitive advantage of firms (Camisón & Forés, 2010) and because it leads to divergent thinking (Nemanich, Keller, Vera, & Chin, 2010). The absorptive capacity of a firm depends on its prior knowledge base (Jiménez-Barrionuevo, García-Morales, & Molina, 2011). Zhou & Li (2012) suggests that it is important that the existing knowledge base and the way a firm integrates its knowledge fit with each other. The concept is especially important for small firms because the effective use of outside information is important for small firms to be succesful (Trumbach, Payne, & Kongthon, 2006) and because small firms have a stronger need to learn from external sources of knowledge than larger firms.

capacity to be able to respond on changes. Lastly, most research is done in large firms while 99% of the firms in the EU are SMEs (Carter & Jones-Evans, 2006).

The same reason of R&D related proxies could be applied here. R&D is likely to be most visible in large firms, because in small firms R&D is less formally organized (Roper, 1999).

Because, there is little consensus about how absorptive capacity should be defined and measured and the knowledge gap of absorptive capacity in SMEs, the objective of this thesis is to provide insights to understand how absorptive capacity should be conceptualized and operated in the context of SMEs. Specifically, the objective of this research is to provide insights in how practitioners in SMEs think the concept should be measured.

The research question answered in this thesis is: how should absorptive capacity be measured according to SME owners/managers? To answer this question a theoretical review of the definitions and of the existing measurement instruments for absorptive capacity is conducted, followed by an exploratory research in which the SME owners/managers are asked what they think about the existing scales.

The theoretical implication of this study is to provide insights in how practitioners think absorptive capacity has to be measured. These insights can support scholars in developing the absorptive capacity literature so that the theories and measurement systems are applicable in SMEs. The results of this study indicate that existing measurement systems are less useful in SMEs. The managerial implication of this study is that the participating SME owners/managers are now more aware of the absorptive capacity concept. Furthermore, they are aware of the importance of the concept for their competitive advantage.

2 Theoretical framework

Absorptive capacity is a concept which have been approached from different perspectives, for instance knowledge management, innovation management and organizational learning (Flatten, Engelen, Zahra, & Brettel, 2011) and on different levels: individual level (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), unit level (Tsai, 2001), firm level (Zahra & George, 2000), network level (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000) or industry level (Zahra & George, 2000). In this section multiple definitions of absorptive capacity are discussed, followed by how absorptive capacity is measured.

2.1 Definitions of absorptive capacity

In the literature three dominant streams of absorptive capacity can be identified (Zahra & George, 2000). First, Cohen & Levinthal (1990) introduced the concept of absorptive capacity as follows: “the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends”. Second, Mowery & Oxley (1995) defined absorptive capacity as “a broad set of skills a firm needs to deal with the tacit component of transferred knowledge and the frequent need to modify imported knowledge for that firm’s particular uses” (Zahra & George, 2000). Lastly, Kim (1997, 1998) suggests that absorptive capacity “requires the capacity to learn and solve problems” (Zahra & George, 2000). From these three streams, the stream of Cohen & Levinthal (1990) is mostly followed (Zahra & George, 2000), which is also shown by the number of citations in scientific articles. The definitions and number of citations of these three main streams are summarized in the table below (table 1).

Table 1: Definitions of main literature streams. * # of citations counted on 30/5/2013.

Stream Definition # of times cited*

Cohen & Levinthal (1990) “ACAP is the firm’s ability to value, assimilate and apply new knowledge.”

19420

Mowery & Oxley (1995) “ACAP is a broad set of skills a firm needs to deal with the tacit component of transferred knowledge and the frequent need to modify imported knowledge for that firm’s particular use.”

443

Kim (1997 & 1998) “ACAP requires the capacity to learn and solve problems.”

783

Zahra & George (2002) also took the definition of Cohen & Levinthal (1990) as a base, and made a more radical transformation of the definition. They defined absorptive capacity as “a set of organizational routines and processes by which firms acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit knowledge to produce a dynamic organizational capability”. Zahra & George (2002) extended the definition of Cohen & Levinthal (1990) to four dimensions (acquire, assimilate, transform and exploit), whereas Cohen & Levinthal (1990) saw absorptive capacity as a three dimensional construct (recognize, assimilate, apply). Together the first two dimensions of Zahra & George (2002) are the potential absorptive capacity of a firm, where the other dimensions form the realized absorptive capacity. Furthermore, Zahra & George (2002) introduced the approach of absorptive capacity as a dynamic capability, where the last dimensions build upon the first (Camisón & Forés, 2010).

Later on, Lane et al. (2006) combined, after an extensive literature review, the important things identified in the literature so far and finally defined absorptive capacity as “a firm's ability to utilize externally held knowledge through three sequential processes: (1) recognizing and understanding potentially valuable new knowledge outside the firm through exploratory learning, (2) assimilating valuable new knowledge through transformative learning, and (3) using the assimilated knowledge to create new knowledge and commercial outputs through exploitative learning”.

absorptive capacity “as the organization’s relative ability to develop a set of organizational routines and strategic processes through which it acquires, assimilates, transforms and exploits knowledge acquired from outside the organization in order to create value”.

All these “new” definitions in the literature stream of Cohen & Levinthal (1990) are summarized in the table below (table 2). Also the number of citations is included in the table.

Table 2: Definitions based on Cohen & Levinthal (1990). * # of citations counted on 30/5/2013

Stream Definition # of times cited*

Lane & Lubatkin

(1998)

“absorptive capacity is the ability of a (student or receiver) firm to value, assimilate and apply knowledge derived from another (teacher or sender) firm”

3105

Zahra & George

(2002)

“absorptive capacity is a set of organizational routines and processes by which firms acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit knowledge to produce a dynamic organizational capability”

3685

Lane, Koka & Pathak (2006)

“ absorptive capacity is a firm's ability to utilize externally held knowledge through three sequential processes: (1) recognizing and understanding potentially valuable new knowledge outside the firm through exploratory learning, (2) assimilating valuable new knowledge through transformative learning, and (3) using the assimilated knowledge to create new knowledge and commercial outputs through exploitative learning” 763 Jiménez-Barrionuevo, García-Morales, & Molina (2011)

“absorptive capacity is the organization’s relative ability to develop a set of organizational routines and strategic processes through which it acquires, assimilates, transforms and exploits knowledge acquired from outside the organization in order to create value”.

18

2.2 Measurements of absorptive capacity

the latter longitudinal studies have to be performed (Volberda et al., 2010). The problem with the R&D related proxies is that they do not take the multiple dimensions of absorptive capacity, as described in the previous sub-section, into account (Lane et al., 2006). A lot of scholars use R&D related proxies because Cohen & Levinthal (1990) introduced the concept in a model with R&D.

When looking at empirical studies of absorptive capacity in the last 10 years (table 3), it can be concluded that the streams of Cohen & Levinthal (1990) and Zahra & George (2002) are indeed mostly used, which is also supported by the number of citations in tables 1 and 2. Furthermore it can also be concluded that there is indeed also no consensus about the definition of absorptive capacity (the definitions of Cohen & Levinthal (1990) and Zahra & George (2002) are both used seven times) which was mentioned by Lane, Koka & Pathak in their 2002 article.

To investigate which measures are used by the researchers in the two different literature streams, a few articles are selected. The articles of Cadiz, Sawyer & Griffin (2009) and Expósito-Langa, Molina-Morales & Capó-Vicedo (2011) are selected to represent the literature stream of Cohen & Levinthal (1990) because in these articles full scale items are presented. For the same reason the articles of Flatten, Engelen, Zahra & Brettel (2011) and Camisón & Forés (2010) are selected to represent the literature stream of Zahra & George (2002). The direction of the measures used by these scholars are listed in table 4 and 5.

When comparing the measures in both literature streams, it can be concluded that the technical things (ICT, R&D and technology) are important when measuring the absorptive capacity of a firm. This may explain why almost all empirical studies of the last 10 years (see table 3) are conducted in knowledge intensive sectors. “The term knowledge-based industries usually refers to those industries which are relatively intensive in their inputs of technology and/or human capital” (OECD, 1999). While ICT production or usage is often used to make a distinction between knowledge and non-knowledge intensive sectors (Brinkley, 2006), knowledge intensive business services also can be classified as knowledge intensive sectors (Hertog, 2000). Following the definition it seems logical that most research has been conducted in knowledge intensive sectors when the scholars were looking for technical things. This may be a reason why non-knowledge intensive sectors are more or less forgotten (Grimpe & Sofka, 2009; Hervas-Oliver et al., 2012).

That the technical things are important may also explain why there are little studies about absorptive capacity in small firms. Of the fifteen studies included in table 3 only five paid attention to SMEs, of which only three focused on SMEs specifically. This while 99% of the firms in the EU are SMEs (Carter & Jones-Evans, 2006) and it seems that absorptive capacity is even more important to small than to large firms. This is because SMEs rely stronger on external knowledge sources than larger firms. It seems a bit contradictory that absorptive capacity is more important to SMEs, but when using the common measures (the technical things) the result is that their absorptive capacity is lower than large firms.

Table 3: Overview of empirical studies of the last 10 years

Year Authors Literature stream

Measured by Measured in Sample size

Who Comments

2013 Löwik Zahra & George (2002)

Recognition, assimilation, transformation, exploitation

Dutch medium-sized industrial firms

4 Employees Departmental-level scale items

2013 Clausen Cohen & Levinthal (1990)

Internal R&D, training activities Norwegian and Swedish enterprises with 10 or more employees 6000 Managers 2011 Jiménez-Barrionue vo, García-Morales, & Molina

Zahra & George (2002)

Acquisition (interaction, trust, respect, friendship, reciprocity), assimilation (common language, complementarity, similarity, compatibility), transformation (communication, meetings, documents, transmission, time, flows), exploitation (responsibility, application)

168 Spanish firms, 87,6% SMEs 168 47 automotiv e and 121 chemical sectors

CEO’s Especially useful when strategic alliances are generated or cooperation between firms arises.

2011 Flatten, Engelen, Zahra, & Brettel

Zahra & George (2002)

Acquisition, assimilation, transformation, exploitation German firms Chemical, mechanical, and electrical engineering sectors 65% of firms with fewer than 150 full-time employees First sample: 285 Second sample: 361 CEO’s senior executives employees 2011 Cepeda-Carrion, Navarro & Martinez-Caro

Zahra & George (2002)

Acquisition, assimilation, transformation, exploitation Spanish healthcare 55 doctors 62 nurses 55 doctors 62 nurses

2011 Expósito-Langa, Molina-Morales & Capó-Vicedo Cohen & Levinthal (1990)

Identification, assimilation, exploitation Valencian (Spanish) textile industry 74 CEO R&D Department managers Members of the research team 2010 Camisón & Forés

Zahra & George (2002)

Acquisition, assimilation, transformation, application Spanish industrial firms except energy sector 952 President / chairman / CEO 2010 Garcia-Morales, Ruiz-Moreno & Llorens-Montes Most specific literature Largest companies in Spain Technological firms

246 CEOs Especially technology absorptive capacity

2010 Liao, Wu, Hu & Tsui

Cohen & Levinthal (1990)

Communication with the external environment, level of know-how and experience within the organization, diversity and overlaps in the knowledge structure, strategic positioning

Firms listed in Common Wealth Magazine’s top 1000 manufacturers and top 100 financial firms in 2006 Taiwanese firms 362 2010 Nemanich , Keller, Vera & Chin Cohen & Levinthal (1990)

Evaluation, assimilation, application US firms Computer technology industry 100 Principal investigator of R&D project team

R&D project teams

2010 Saito & Sumikura

Cohen & Levinthal (1990)

R&D expenditure, R&D intensity, R&D activities, patent data

Pharmaceutical firms

46 External scientific research 2009 Cadiz,

Sawyer &

Cohen & Levinthal (1990)

Assessment, assimilation, application Fortune 100 science/technolo

Griffin gy company 2009 Li &

Vanhaver beke

Zahra & George (2002)

Acquisition, assimilation The most significant innovations in terms of technological novelty in Canada 1421 Industrial experts Innovating firms 2007 Liao, Fei & Chen D. Minbaeva, T. Pedersen, I. Björkman, C.F. Fey and H.J. Park (2003)

Employees ability, employee motivation Taiwan Electronics, medical and banking industry 355 Employees 2005 Jansen, Van den Bosch & Volberda

Zahra & George (2002)

Acquisition, assimilation, transformation, exploitation Large European, multi-unit financial services firms Top 30 of Fortune Global 500 462 General managers of organization al units Departmental-level scale items 2003 Liao, Welsch & Stoica

Heeley (1997) External knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge dissemination

SMEs from Washington State

Table 4: Direction of measures in literature stream of Cohen & Levinthal (1990). Expósito-Langa et

al. (2011)

Identification items related to the location of information and intensity of R&D activities

Assimilation intensive use of information and communication technology, routines in internal communication, education level of employees

Exploitation analyzing the environment and adapting its strategy Cadiz et al. (2009): Assessment prior knowledge base of employees

Assimilation knowledge base of organization, technology Application adaptation of work to technical knowledge

Table 5: Direction of measures in literature stream of Zahra & George (2002). Flatten, et al.

(2011)

Acquisition management style, organizational practices, location of information (is search for knowledge, where is searched, role of management in this)

Assimilation internal communication (how share knowledge)

Transformation processing of knowledge, ability of employees (ability of employees to process knowledge) Exploitation management style, adaptation of work to technical knowledge (is the knowledge exploited) Camisón & Forés

(2010)

Acquisition knowledge is recognized, management style (where is searched for knowledge, role of management in this)

Assimilation (how) knowledge is assimilated, involvement in spreading knowledge

3 Methodology

As said before, there is little consensus about how absorptive capacity should be measured and developed. Therefore an exploratory research is conducted. The research strategy for this exploratory study is the use of case studies. Case studies are often viewed as a useful tool and for answering a “how” research question (Rowley, 2002). The selected cases are studied through semi-structured interviews followed by a questionnaire, so that the study includes both a qualitative and a quantitative part because this combination results in a synergistic view of evidence (Eisenhardt, 1989). In this research the level of interest is at firm level. The methodology of this research is elaborated in two different subsections, respectively data gathering and data analysis. After these two sections also the reliability and validity of this study are discussed.

3.1 Data gathering

As said before, the data is gathered through semi-structured interviews followed by questionnaires in a 25-45 minutes during conversation. This section elaborates on how the interview guideline and the questionnaire are conducted and ends with the sample selection.

3.1.1 Semi-structured interview

A semi-structured interview is conducted to ask small business owners in the Netherlands about what they think how it should be measured. This provides objective information about how the concept is/should be measured in practice.

This interview starts with an explanation of absorptive capacity because it is likely that the small business owners do not know the concept if they only hear the words. Therefore also some examples of absorptive capacity are given. Then it is asked if the owners/managers know the construct and if they measure it in their company. If they measure it the next question is how do they measure it? If not, the owners/managers are asked to imagine that they have to measure it: how would they do it?

owners/managers have not seen the existing statements yet. When first the questionnaire was given it was possible that the respondents were not blanco anymore, what could have had resulted in limited answers because they follow the points of view of scholars.

The interview guideline which is used can be found in appendix A.

3.1.2 Questionnaire

Immediately after the semi-structured interview a questionnaire is presented to the respondent. This questionnaire contains scale items which are used in the past. To conduct a list with existing statements a pool of items is generated after the literature review of the theory section. As discussed in the theory section the articles of Cadiz et al. (2009) and Expósito-Langa et al. (2011) are selected to represent the literature stream of Cohen & Levinthal (1990) and the articles of Flatten et al. (2011) and Camisón & Forés (2010) are selected to represent the literature stream of Zahra & George (2002). The unique items in this pool have been used in the questionnaire, some with a small adjustment to make them more clear in Dutch. Furthermore, a few items about several business units are removed from the list because this research is at firm level instead of unit level. The questionnaire can be found in appendix B.

The small business owners have to state to what extent they think these questions cover the concept of absorptive capacity in the right way and if they think this statement would be relevant for their company. They also can denote that they think the statement is vague, give some comments on these existing statements or give suggestions for new or other statements they would like to see. Following this approach, the objective meaning of the SME owners/managers can be compared with the existing theory.

Figure 1: Process of item evaluation

3.1.3 Respondents

Pilot study

To test the questionnaire, especially if the explanation of absorptive capacity is clear, a pre-test is conducted with two small business owners/managers. The owners/managers who participated in the pre-test have not been participating during the data collection phase.

Data collection

After the pre-test the questionnaire is given to small business owners/managers of 8 SMEs in the Netherlands. It is choosen to use 8 companies because according to Eisenhardt (1989) a number between 4 and 10 cases usually works well. The interviews are taken with the owners/managers of the SMEs. This is because in SMEs the owner/manager plays an important role (Carter & Jones-Evans, 2006), and it is likely that absorptive capacity “will be reflected in the development, experience and motivation of the owner/manager and key staff members” (Gray, 2006). For the privacy of the owners/managers the cases are processed while they are anonymyzed. Before the interviews took place, a so called deskresearch is conducted. The websites of the participated companies are viewed to get a first general idea about the business the company is in.

For this research SMEs with more than 9 employees are used, so excluding the micro firms, with a maximum of 250 employees according to the EU definition (EuropeanUnion, 2005). It has been choosen to use the 9+ boundary because there has to be some form of organizational routines and processes (Zahra & George, 2002), while on the other hand the smaller firms rely more on outside information (Trumbach, Payne, & Kongthon, 2006). Therefor it seems like

Literature based item pool (# of items)

•Cohen & Levinthal •Assessment: 8 •Assimilation: 7 •Exploitation: 7 •Zahra & George •Acquisition: 7 •Assimilation: 10 •Transformation: 9 •Exploitation: 7

Item pool after selection (# of items)

•Cohen & Levinthal •Assessment: 6 •Assimilation: 6 •Exploitation: 3 •Zahra & George •Acquisition: 6 •Assimilation: 6 •Transformation: 8 •Exploitation: 4

the 9+ boundary is a satisfying medium. The boundary of 250 is used because it is a widely used boundary.

3.1.4 Branches

Of the interviews, 4 are conducted in a knowledge intensive sector and 4 are conducted in a non-knowledge intensive sector. It has been choosen to use IT (software development) as a knowledge intensive sector because in the IT (software development) sector new technologies/developments are really important. As a non-knowledge intensive sector it has been choosen to use the hospitality industry. This sector has been choosen because it is classified as a non-knowledge intensive industry by the OECD (2008) and mostly the owners are present at the workplace so they really know what happens in the communication between employees and customers. Because only 4 companies of each sector participated in this research, the statistical generalization of this research is limited. But because the empirical results of the case studies are compared with previously developed theory (the existing scales), the analytical generalization of this research is ensured (Rowley, 2002). The respondents are summarized in the tables below (tables 6 and 7).

Table 6: Non-knowledge intensive companies

Company A B C D Industry Hospitality (restaurant) Hospitality (restaurant) Hospitality (restaurant) Hospitality (restaurant) Function of respondent

Owner Owner Owner Manager

Function since 7 years 7 years 6 years 4 weeks

Gender of respondent

Female Male Male Female

Age of respondent 40 28 43 24

Level of education of respondent

Culinary school MBO LTS HBO

Number of employees

Table 7: Knowledge intensive companies Company E F G H Industry IT (Software development) IT (Software development) IT (Software development) IT (Software development) Function of respondent CTO (owner before merger)

Owner Owner CEO, co-owner

Function since 8 years 11 years 14 years 11 years

Gender of respondent

Male Female Male Male

Age of respondent 39 53 50 43

Level of education of respondent

University University HBO Phd

Number of employees

130 12 15 50-60

3.2 Data analysis

In this section it is outlined how the gathered data is analyzed. This section contains of three subsections, respectively the analysis of the semi-structured interview, the analysis of the questionnaire, and the analysis to combine those results.

3.2.1 Semi-structured interview

method is mentioned in different words. For this research the replication means that the measurement method is considered as a useful method.

3.2.2 Questionnaire

To test to which extent the SME owners/managers agree with what scholars have studied so far, the average score per dimension is calculated. These dimension averages are used to calculate an average score per literature stream. After that, these literature stream averages are used to calculate the descriptive statistics and also to conduct an independent samples t-test and a paired samples t-test. The paired samples t-test is used to test whether there is a significant difference in scores given to the different literature streams (Cohen & Levinthal (1990) and Zahra & George (2002)). After that the independent samples t-test is used to check if there is a significant difference in scores given by owners/managers of companies in hospitality and IT. Because these tests and statistics only give a general overview to what extent the owners/managers agree with the scholars, the statements are also individually analyzed.

This individual statement analysis is done as follows. When two or more owners/managers gave the same answers at a statement, this answer is considered as reliable. But in the continuation of this study, this answer is only used when this answer was most frequently given. When the most common answer (per sector or overall) was “not relevant” or “statement is vague”, this statement is excluded in the further examination of this research. This corresponds to what Rowley (2002) said: “if two or more cases are shown to support the same theory, replication can be claimed”.

3.2.3 Combined

To combine the results of the above mentioned analyses a development strategy is used. This means that the results of one method are used to help develop or inform the other method (Caracelli & Greene, 1993). The development strategy is used to make measurement decisions (Caracelli & Greene, 1993). In this research the results of the analyses are used to help evaluate the scale for the measurement of the absorptive capacity of a company, which is in line with the intended used of the development strategy.

3.3 Reliability

makes sure that the internal reliability of this study is ensured (Van Staa & Evers, 2010). The other types of reliability are also covered, as explained in the sub-sections below.

3.3.1 Research reliability

The results of this research are independent of the characteristics of the researcher because the interview is semi-structured in a way that an interview guideline is prepared to make sure that the important topics are covered. After the few open questions the questionnaire is given to the respondents. The respondents have to read the questions themselves and have to give answer if they understand the questions or not. Furthermore, to increase the reliability of the researcher, the pre-test is conducted to test if the given absorptive capacity is clear, so that the researcher does not have to give additional explanation during the real interviews.

3.3.2 Instrument reliability

The instrument used in this research is reliable because the same research method (questionnaire) with key informants giving feedback on the quality of the items in the initial item pool is also used by Flatten et al. (2011) which finally has resulted in a validated scale.

3.3.3 Respondent reliability

The reliability of the respondents in this research is high because they do not have to judge themselves. The questions asked are only about if they understand and can answer the questions or about how they would measure the absorptive capacity concept.

3.4 Validity

4 Results

In this section the results of the research are outlined. This section starts with the results of the semi-structured interviews, followed by the results of the questionnaire.

4.1 Semi-structured interview

In this sub-section the results are outlined per company. After that the results are decontextualized and displayed in a table.

4.1.1 Company A

The owner of this company did not know her company has an absorptive capacity, so she also does not measure it. When she should have to measure it, she would measure the time spend on searching for information, the frequency of going to eat at competitors and the number of fairs visited. Furthermore she would measure to what extent the employees are asked about their opinion and to what extent references of others are obtained. She would also measure how active her company is in posting messages on Facebook and how many word of mouth advertising her company has compared to competitors. Lastly, she would measure the extent to which the company has a corporate social responsibility.

4.1.2 Company B

The owner of this company did not know his company has an absorptive capacity, so he also does not measure it. He thinks it is a hard thing to measure, but when he should have to measure it he would analyze the flexibility of the company, because flexible companies are better able to respond to trends and developments quickly, which maybe indicates that flexible companies have a higher absorptive capacity than traditional companies have. Furthermore, he would measure the number of network clubs a company is a member of or the number of partnerships a company has. Another thing he would measure is the extent to which the company has a corporate social responsibility, the usage of social media/internet, customer satisfaction, positive evolution of the turnover and (progression in) your result (do you offer what you want to offer). The last thing is the extent to which the employees are asked about their opinion.

4.1.3 Company C

this, he would measure the number of activities he performed and the number of partnerships he has. He thinks the time spend on searching for information isn’t really measurable because people always look around, even if they are not aware of the fact they do. He would also measure customer satisfaction and the number of innovations he has, showing that he is more innovative than other companies. The last thing he should measure is the time which is required to commercialize a trend or a new development, because this is a difference between companies with a high or a low absorptive capacity.

4.1.4 Company D

The manager of this company is aware of the importance of the absorptive capacity and she said this capacity cannot be expressed in numbers. When she should have to measure it, she would take a look at the age of the company because younger firms are more open to new developments than companies which exist for many years, because this old companies are maybe satisfied with the way they are working for all that years. A younger firm can commercialize developments quicker, which may indicate a higher absorptive capacity. Furthermore, you can measure the time spend on searching for information, but this only indicates absorptive capacity if this time really is spend to use the things you encounter. When you spend time visiting fairs just because fairs are fun this doesn’t indicate your absorptive capacity. But most important is listening to customers and asking feedback (in several ways: with questionnaires, in a conversation, tasting evenings), so customer satisfaction. Last things you can measure are the number of innovations they have or the number of times they show up in the media.

4.1.5 Company E

But the most important thing in measuring this capacity is that you do not know what you do not know. You can be happy about the new products you make, but maybe you missed the most important development.

4.1.6 Company F

The owner of this company thinks the absorptive capacity is the capacity of a few employees in the company. It is a quality people have. She thinks the absorptive capacity cannot be expressed in numbers, anyway it cannot in SMEs. But you can make a distinction between companies with a high and a low absorptive capacity based on a few things. Firstly, you can measure the change in the output of the company, what is the difference in the products they offered 5 years ago and they offer now. Secondly, you can measure the percentage of people with a higher education who contribute to the output. Thirdly, the appreciation of the market for you company. For instance the number of prices or awards a company won. Lastly, the way you communicate about yourself. Does a company say about herself that she is innovative than probably they are more focused on new developments and innovation than on making as much money as you can, so a more outside focus. Furthermore, you can measure how many time you spend on customers projects and on own projects, the number of patents, the duration of participation in the WBSO, number of relationships which help you recognize the right signals, number of network activities and on which type of network you give your preference to (innovative vs. commercial).

4.1.7 Company G

recorded information makes sense en which percentage has lead to new commercial developments.

4.1.8 Company H

The owner of this company is aware of the absorptive capacity process. He thinks it would be nice if a process can be designed to measure this capacity, because it would be nice if you can make employees aware of this process. If he should have to measure this, he would measure the ratios of new patents or products and the value of this patents or products. Furthermore, he would measure the growth in turnover based on this new products. Maybe you can make a list on which you record all new impulses and then monitor what you do with the impulses. If a company spends money in a development, than internally they are convinced that it is an important development. You can measure the ratios of the number of patents and the number of employees, or the growth of turnover for a specific product. Measuring the output is most objectively. You can also measure to which extent a company uses a think tank in which employees of several functions/departments share information (about new developments).

4.1.9 Decontextualization

In this section, the measurement methods mentioned above are decontextualized and is counted how many times a method is mentioned. When a method is mentioned two or more times this method is further used in the research, but when a (similar) method is mentioned a few times in similar words, this method is also further used in the research. An overview of the methods which are mentioned is displayed in the table below (table 8).

Table 8: Overview of methods mentioned. *Measured (more then) two time, **Similar to other method mentioned

Measurement method A B C D E F G H # times mentioned

(Obtaining) information

Time spend on searching information* x x x x 4

Frequency of going to eat at competitors x 1

Extent employees are asked about their opinion* x x 2

Extent references are obtained x 1

Extent of usage of social media/internet x 1

Extent following the right blogs x 1

Time employees are allowed to search information x 1

Number of employees doing nothing else than searching information x 1

Record information about everything you have discovered* x x 2

% of information about developements make sense** x 1

% of information which led to new commercial development** x 1

Monitor what you do with information discovered** x 1

Number of activities performed x 1

Networking

Number of fairs visited x 1

Number of network clubs** x 1

Number of partnerships* x x 2

Number of relationships x 1

Number of network activities** x 1

Financial

Positive evolution of turnover x 1

% turnover which is result of openness to new developments** x 1

Growth in turnover based on new products** x 1

Extent to which company spends money on a development x 1

Advertising

Number of posted messages on Facebook x 1

Extent of word of mouth advertising x 1

Number of times showing up in media x 1

The way company communicates about itself x 1

Company characteristics

Extent of corporate social responsibility* x x 2

Flexibility of the company x 1

Age of the company x 1

Extent employees think about developments x 1

Absorptive capacity of employees* x x 2

% employees with higher education x 1

Extent to which company uses a think tank x 1

(Progression in) extent to which a company offers what it wants x 1

Time required to commercialize a trend/development x 1

Time spend on own/customers projects x 1

Duration of participation in WBSO x 1

Innovations

Number of innovations* x x 2

Number of patents** x 1

Number of patents (products) / value of this patents (products)** x 1

Number of patents / number of employees** x 1

Other

Customer satisfaction* x x 2

Extent to which roadmap is right x 1

Change in output of the company x 1

4.2 Questionnaire

4.2.1 General results

As said in the data analysis section, the average scores per literature stream and dimension are used for the analysis. These scores are displayed in the tables below (tables 9-11).

Table 9: Average scores per dimension (per company). X=all statements not relevant

Dimension A B C D E F G H Overall average CL assessment 2,60 3,40 2,67 3,00 3,00 3,80 3,80 3,00 3,22 CL assimilation 2,50 3,67 2,83 X 2,83 2,83 3,00 2,50 2,94 CL exploitation 2,67 4,00 4,00 X 3,67 3,33 3,00 2,67 3,31 ZG acquisition 2,67 3,67 2,75 2,25 2,80 2,83 2,60 3,50 2,94 ZG assimilation 2,40 3,67 3,25 2,67 3,33 2,60 3,00 2,83 2,96 ZG transformation 2,86 3,13 2,50 2,60 3,38 2,75 3,38 2,88 2,97 ZG exploitation 3,00 4,00 3,33 X 4,00 2,67 4,00 2,67 3,31

Table 10: Average scores per literature stream (per company) Literature stream A B C D E F G H Overall average Cohen & Levinthal 2,59 3,69 3,17 3,00 3,17 3,32 3,27 2,72 3,12 Zahra & George 2,73 3,62 2,96 2,51 3,38 2,71 3,25 2,97 3,02

Table 11: Descriptive statistics per literature stream (overall) Literature

stream

N Min Max Mean Standard

A paired samples t-test is conducted to test whether there is a significant difference in average scores between the literature streams of Cohen & Levinthal and Zahra & George. The difference between Cohen & Levinthal (M= 3,11, SD=0,35) and Zahra & George (M=3,01, SD=0,37, t(7)=0,89, p=0,40) is not significant because the probability value (0,40) is high above 0,05.

Furthermore, an independent samples t-test is conducted to compare the average literature stream scores of companies in hospitality and IT. There is no significant difference in scores for companies in hospitality (M=3,11 , SD=0,46) and companies in IT (M=3,12, SD=0,27 , t(6)=-0,028, p=0,47) at the literature stream of Cohen & Levinthal. At the literature stream of Zahra & George also no significant difference is found for companies in hospitality (M=2,95, SD=0,48) and companies in IT (M=3,08, SD=0,30, t(6)=-0,43, p=0,55).

4.2.2 Individual statements

Figure 2: Process of item evaluation

This leads to the following new descriptive statistics and results (tables 12-14).

Table 12: Average scores per dimension (per company). X=all statements not relevant

Dimension A B C D E F G H Overall average CL assessment 2,50 3,25 2,67 3,00 3,00 3,75 3,75 3,00 3,11 CL assimilation 2,50 3,50 2,75 X 2,75 2,75 3,25 2,50 2,86 CL exploitation 3,00 4,00 4,00 X 4,00 3,00 3,00 2,50 3,40 ZG acquisition 2,50 3,50 2,75 2,25 2,75 3,00 2,50 3,50 2,84 ZG assimilation 2,67 3,50 3,25 2,67 3,50 2,25 2,67 3,00 2,97 ZG transformation 3,00 3,20 2,50 2,60 3,80 2,80 3,60 2,80 3,06 ZG exploitation 3,00 4,00 3,33 X 4,00 2,67 4,00 2,67 3,31

Table 13: Average scores per literature stream (per company) Literature stream A B C D E F G H Overall average Cohen & Levinthal 2,67 3,58 3,14 3,00 3,25 3,17 3,33 2,67 3,10 Zahra & George 2,79 3,55 2,96 2,51 3,51 2,68 3,19 2,99 3,02 Literature based item pool (#

of items)

•Cohen & Levinthal •Assessment: 8 •Assimilation: 7 •Exploitation: 7 •Zahra & George •Acquisition: 7 •Assimilation: 10 •Transformation: 9 •Exploitation: 7

Item pool after selection (# of items)

•Cohen & Levinthal •Assessment: 6 •Assimilation: 6 •Exploitation: 3 •Zahra & George •Acquisition: 6 •Assimilation: 6 •Transformation: 8 •Exploitation: 3

Item pool after expert review (# of items)

Table 14: Descriptive statistics per literature stream (overall) Literature

stream

N Min Max Mean Standard

deviation Variance Cohen & Levinthal 8 2,67 3,58 3,10 0,32 0,10 Zahra & George 8 2,51 3,55 3,02 0,38 0,14

Because of these new results, the paired samples t-test and the independent samples t-test are conducted again.

Now the difference between Cohen & Levinthal (M= 3,10, SD=0,32) and Zahra & George (M=3,02, SD=0,38, t(7)=0,71, p=0,50) still is not significant because the probability value (0,50) is high above 0,05.

Furthermore, there is still no significant difference in scores for companies in hospitality (M=3,10 , SD=0,38) and companies in IT (M=3,10, SD=0,30 , t(6)=-0,028, p=0,76) at the literature stream of Cohen & Levinthal. At the literature stream of Zahra & George also still no significant difference is found for companies in hospitality (M=2,95, SD=0,44) and companies in IT (M=3,09, SD=0,35, t(6)=-0,51, p=0,80).

Of the remaining statements, the answer which is given most common is considered as true. When two answers are given as often, but both at least two times, the score is averaged. The number of remaining scores, per literature stream, is displayed in the table below (table 15). The remaining score per statement can be found in appendix D.

4.3 Combined

As said in the data analysis section, the results of the semi-structured interview and the questionnaire are combined. The combining of answers leads to the following results.

The mentioned method time spend on searching information can be related to the existing statement CL3. Furthermore, the mentioned method extent to which employees are asked about their opinion can be related to statement ZG8, the mentioned method number of network clubs/activities can be related to statement and the mentioned method absorptive capacity of employees can be related to statements ZG13-16. The last mentioned method which can be related to an existing statement is number of patents (related to statement ZG22). This means that only 5 of the mentioned methods can be related to one or more of the existing 26 statements that were indicated as useful with the questionnaire. These results are displayed in table 16. All other mentioned methods cannot be related to any of the existing statements.

Table 16: Overview of mentioned methods which can be related to existing statements.

Mentioned method Related to statement

Time spend on searching information CL3 (time expanded and intensity in seeking external information)

Extent to which employees are asked about their opinion

ZG8 (ability to use employees’ level of knowledge, experience and competencies in the assimilation and interpretation of new knowledge)

Number of network clubs/activities ZG11 (attendance to training courses, trade fairs and meetings)

Absorptive capacity of employees ZG13-16 (ability of employees to structure and use knowledge, employees are used to absorb knowledge, employees link existing knowledge with new insights and employees are able to apply knowledge in their practical work)

5 Discussion

The first important point the owners/managers in this research agree on is that the absorptive capacity of a company cannot be expressed in numbers, this means that the capacity of a company only can be measured in terms of high/low compared to other companies. Because this comparison of companies is important, it is that scale items are identified which can be used to measure absorptive capacity in many different companies and sectors.

As explained in the theory section, there is no consensus about how absorptive capacity should be defined. The results of this study indicate that, according to SME owners/managers, there is no significant difference in which definition (3 or 4 dimensional) is better, and logically should be used in future research. However the average scores are calculated with many individual statements scores instead of the definitions itself, it indicates that the SME owners/managers slightly prefer the 3 dimensional definition of Cohen & Levinthal (1990). A reason for this can be that the statements of the literature stream of Cohen & Levinthal (1990) are more vague because the whole concept is divided in 3 dimensions instead of the 4 dimensions of the stream of Zahra & George (2002). When statements are more vague it is harder to clearly indicate if you think this statement covers the concept or not. This can result in higher scores because the owners/managers think that because the statements are made by scholars they should be right. When a statement is more clear (stream of Zahra & George (2002)) it is easier to see if a statement corresponds with your own ideas about how absorptive capacity should be measured, maybe resulting in lower scores. Also important here is that the scores given by hospitality en IT companies respectively, are not significantly different. This means that, to a great extent, they have the same ideas about the existing statements. What can be concluded from this is that the owners/managers think the existing statements can be used to measure the absorptive capacity of a SME (except from the statements which are excluded in the results section).

trends etc. and develop their company based on that. The reason that they indicate that R&D is not relevant in their companies can be that, which is also stated by Roper (1999), R&D is less formal or even informal organized in these SMEs. It can be that the owners/managers are not aware of the R&D activities that are performed in their company. On the other hand, in the software development companies these statements are relevant. But because of the before mentioned importance of comparison between companies and sectors, it can be concluded that these R&D related proxies are not useful to measure the absorptive capacity of a SME. Also the statements about ICT are mainly indicated as “not relevant”. However also in this research the ICT usage and production can be used to make a distinction between knowledge intensive and non-knowledge intensive, as said by Brinkley (2006), it is not fair to use this ICT usage and production as a distinction between companies with a high and a low absorptive capacity. This can be indicated with the following example. Imagine a hospitality company, when this company can effectively gather customer feedback about dishes on the menu, employees in this company talk with each other about this feedback, cooks think about how this feedback can be used to improve the menu, and finally the cooks introduce some new dishes. Following the definition of Cohen & Levinthal (1990) this company has a high absorptive capacity. It recognized the value of the external information, assimilated it, and applied it to commercial ends. When the absorptive capacity of this company would be measured based on the ICT usage and production the result would be that the absorptive capacity of this company is very low, because no ICT was used or produced during this process.

owners/managers think that a company should record information about everything they discover, so that can be measured how many percent of this recorded information led to commercial developments. However this is exactly following the definition, it is not really a method which can be used in practice. When a company has to record everything they discover (also the discoveries they are unaware of), it becomes a goal in itself to capture everything instead of providing a service so that the absorptive capacity can be measured.

Other things that can be used to measure the absorptive capacity are the number of partnerships and the number of network activities. These partners and activities can help you to recognize the value of important external information. Following this, companies with more partnerships and performing more network activities have more linkages which can help to recognize the value of the right information and so indicating a higher absorptive capacity (identification). Camisón & Fores (2010) also indentified this and have included an item about this in their scale. Furthermore, the percentage of turnover growth what can be related to the introduction of new developments can also be used to indicate a high absorptive capacity. If a high percentage of turnover growth is caused by the introduction of new developments, it is likely that this company has the ability to recognize the value of new external information and has the ability to assimilate and exploit this information to commercial ends. Another thing which is mentioned by the SME owners/managers is that the corporate social responsibility of a company can indicate the absorptive capacity. It can be that because companies who are corporate social responsible are more aware of their environment (Leonard & McAdam, 2003), and so more aware of the new information which is coming from outside the company. In future research it should be studied if there is a relationship between companies who are social responsible and companies with a high absorptive capacity. The last things which can be used for the measurement of absorptive capacity are the number of innovations/patents and customer satisfaction. To make the number of patents/innovations comparable between large and small companies this can be measured in proportion to the number of employees or in proportion to the actual value of the patents. If customers are satisfied, this indicates that a company recognized the value of information which was indeed important, and that a company was able to assimilate and exploit it.

mentioned by Cohen & Levinthal (1990), the absorptive capacity is not simply the sum of the individual capacities. There are also some other aspects involved. An extensive research of this aspect is done by Löwik (2013). He found that also an integrative culture, participation practices and a supportive management style are important aspects. It seems like these aspects are underexposed in the existing scales of absorptive capacity. This can be measured by measuring to what extent the owner/manager asks the employees of a company for their opinion

Another thing that stands out is that in the existing scales the exploitation dimension is the last group of statements. This is in contrast to some of the SME owners/managers who think that the absorptive capacity of a company can be measured the best through the output, so after the exploitation dimension, because measuring the output is most objectively and data of that can be easiest verified. This indicates that the SME owners/managers see the absorptive capacity of a company as a process (some of them also said it) with an input, transformation and an output phase, which is in line with the view of Lane et al. (2006).

6 Conclusion

The objective of this research is to provide insights in how practitioners in SMEs think the concept should be measured. This is investigated with the following research question: “How should absorptive capacity be measured according to SME owners/managers?”.

It can be concluded that the owners/managers who have participated in this research think that most of the existing scale items are useful for measuring the absorptive capacity of a SME. These useful items are shown in table 17. Next to these items, the SME owners/managers think that the absorptive capacity of a SME can be measured through the extent to which information about everything (employees of) the company discovered is recorded, by monitor what is done with the information, by the number of partnerships, the growth in turnover based on new products/developments, the extent of corporate social responsibility, number of innovations and customer satisfaction.

Table 17: Scale items which are indicated as useful in SMEs.

Dimension Statement

CL Assessment People in my team are able to decipher the knowledge that will be most

valuable to us.

It is easy to decide what information will be most useful in meeting our customer’s needs.

Time expanded and intensity in seeking external information.

Company participation in R&D programmes, during the last three years.

CL Assimilation It is easy to see the connection among the pieces of knowledge held jointly

within our team.

Many of the new (technological) developments coming to the team fit well into the current practices (technology).

Routine generation between employees in the implementation and updating of tacit knowledge (periodical meetings, creation of work teams).

Routine generation between employees in sharing explicit knowledge (reports, dossiers).

CL Exploitation My customers can immediately benefit from new (technical) knowledge

learned in the team.

Internalization of knowledge from environment analysis (competitors, customers, providers).

ZG Acquisition The search for relevant information concerning our industry is every-day

business in our company.

Management motivates the employees to use information sources within our industry.

Management expects that the employees deal with information beyond our industry.

Capacity to capture relevant, continuous and up-to-date information and knowledge on current and potential competitors.

ZG Assimilation Ability to use employees’ level of knowledge, experience and competencies

in the assimilation and interpretation of new knowledge.

The firm benefits when it comes to assimilating the basis, key business knowledge (and technologies) from the successful experience of businesses in the same industry.

conferences and congresses, are integrated as lecturers at universities or business schools or receive outside staff on research attachments.

Attendance to training courses, trade fairs and meetings.

ZG Transformation Our employees have the ability to structure and to use collected knowledge.

Our employees are used to absorb new knowledge as well as to prepare it for further purposes and to make it available.

Our employees successfully link existing knowledge with new insights. Our employees are able to apply new knowledge in their practical work. Capacity to adapt practices (technologies) designed by others to the firm’s particular needs.

ZG Exploitation The organization’s capacity to use and exploit new knowledge in the

workplace to respond quickly to environment changes.

Capacity to put (technical) knowledge into products and processes (patents). Ability to respond to the requirements of demand or to competitive pressure, rather than innovating to gain competitiveness by broadening the portfolio of new product, capabilities and technology ideas.

7 Limitations and future research

The first thing that can be studied in future research is investigate if there is a relationship between corporate social responsibility and a high absorptive capacity. In this research the corporate social responsibility is indicated as a important aspect when measuring absorptive capacity, but it is not clear if indeed a relationship exists.

generalizibility of the results. In this study only the analytical generalization of the results is ensured, but the statistical generalization is limited because of the number of respondents.

A last limitation is that the used questionnaire is translated to Dutch by the researcher, who has English as a secondary language. However the translations are checked during the pre-tests, it is possible that some nuances are lost during translation. This same limitation can be raised in the translation of the answers on the semi-structured interview, they had to be translated to English whereby also some nuances may disappeared.

References

Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K. A. (2003). Within-Case and Across-Case Approaches to Qualitative Data Analysis. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH , 13 (6), 871-883.

Brinkley, I. (2006). Defining the knowledge economy: knowledge economy programme report. London: The Work Foundation.

Cadiz, D., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffith, T. L. (2009). Developing and Validating Field Measurement Scales for Absorptive Capacity and Experienced Community of Practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 69 (6), 1035-1058.

Camisón, C., & Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity: New insights for its conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research , 63 (7), 707-715.

Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1993). Data Analysis Strategies for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 15 (2), 195-207.

Carter, S., & Jones-Evans, D. (2006). Enterprise and Small Business: Principles, Practice and Policy (Second Edition ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly , 35 (1), 128-152.

Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing network: the toyota case. Strategic Management Journal , 21 (3), 345-367.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review , 14 (4), 532-550.

Expósito-Langa, M., Molina-Morales, X. F., & Capó-Vicedo, J. (2011). New Product Development and Absorptive Capacity in Industrial Districts: A Multidimensional Approach. Regional Studies , 45 (3), 319-331.

Flatten, T. C., Engelen, A., Zahra, S. A., & Brettel, M. (2011). A measure of absorptive capacity: scale development and validation. European Management Journal , 29, 98-116. Gray, C. (2006). Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in entrepreneurial small firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research , 12 (6), 345-360.

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

Hertog, d. P. (2000). Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management , 4 (4), 491-528.

Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., Albors-Garrigos, J., & Baixauli, J.-J. (2012). Beyond R&D activities: the determinants of firms' absorptive capacity explaining the access to scientific institutes in low-medium-tech contexts. Economics of Innovation and New Technology , 21 (1), 55-81. Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing Potential and Realized Absorptive Capacity: How do Organizational Antecedents Matter? Academy of Management , 48 (6), 999-1015.

Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., García-Morales, V. J., & Molina, L. M. (2011). Validation of an instrument to measure absorptive capacity. Technovation , 31, 190-202.

Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal , 461-477.

Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2002). A thematic analysis and critical assessment of absorptive capacity research. Academy of Management Proceedings .

Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The Reification of Absorptive Capacity: A Critical Review and Rejuvenation of he Construct. Academy of Management , 31 (4), 833-863.

Leonard, D., & McAdam, R. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility. Quality Progress , 27-32.

Löwik, S. (2013). MICRO-FOUNDATIONS OF ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY. A study on knowledge processes for innovation in SMEs.