Master Thesis:
Interfirm Absorptive Capacity
Stefan Spanjer
S2751216
Outline of presentation
1.
Introduction
2.
Theoretical background
3.
Conceptual model and hypotheses
4.
Method
5.
Analysis and results
6.
Discussion
1. Introduction
Tacit knowledge:
§ Difficult to share (Leppälä, 2012).
§ Intuitive and knowledge is not yet abstracted from practice (Spender, 1996).
§ Hard to codify (Kogut & Zander, 1993).
§ Different levels of tacitness (Lane, Salk & Lyles, 2001).
Theoretical and practical relevance:
1. First to empirically test different levels of tacitness:
Management, build and integrate procedures to stimulate encoding of tacit information.
2. Investigate moderating role of environmental turbulence:
Responding may create a competitive advantage.
3. Two different perspectives (buyer and supplier):
Understand differences and develop more effective and successful relationships.
2. Theoretical background
Contracting: the degree to which rules, procedures, instructions and communications are formally
written in documents or formal systems (Khandwalla, 1977; Jansen et al., 2005).
Tacitness: a feature of knowledge, valuable, know-how and skills are needed, difficult to transfer,
describes processes and is context depended (e.g., Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001, Kogut & Zander).
PACAP: a firms capability to value and acquire external knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002)
à Acquisition and Assimilation.
Explorative learning performance: acquiring knowledge through changes in established firm
processes, planned experiments, or different kinds of tests (Baum et al., 2000).
Exploitative learning performance: learning in the firm through search, experimental refining,
selection and reuse of existing routines in the firm (ibid.).
Environmental turbulence: the degree of instability and uncertainty within a firm’s market
3. Conceptual model and hypotheses
Contracting H 1 (-) H 4 (-) PACAP Explorative performance Exploitative performance H 3 (+) H 5 (+) Tacitness H 2 (+) Environmental Turbulence H 6 (+)Hypotheses
H1: Contracting will be negatively related to PACAP.
H2: The relationship between contracting and PACAP will be positively moderated by tacitness (strengthens the
relationship and becomes more negative).
H3: PACAP will be positively related to explorative learning performance.
H4: The effect between PACAP and explorative learning performance is negatively moderated by tacitness.
H5: Explorative learning performance will be positively related to exploitative learning performance.
H6: The effect between PACAP and explorative learning performance is positively moderated by environmental
Method
§ Data collected from both sides of the dyad (buyers, n=166 and suppliers, n=166).
§ Measuring tacitness:
Higher level of tacitness:
8.5: New managerial expertise. 8.4: New marketing expertise.
Lower level of tacitness:
8.2: New product development expertise.
8.1: New manufacturing and production expertise.
§ Statistical procedure: Partial Least Squares, Multi-Group Analysis (PLS-MGA).
Analysis and results
Outer measurement model: combined dataset.
§ Acquire 1.2 (reverse coded) is deleted (no problem, because reflective scale).
§ ET 6.2 and ET 6.4 (insignificant values, problem, because formative scale).
To conclude: measurement model adequately strong.
Inner structural model: buyer and supplier perspectives separately.
§ Contracting, exploitative learning performance and environmental turbulence = no differences.
§ Explorative learning performance and PACAP = differences (significant higher value supplier).
Higher level of tacitness:
8.5: New managerial expertise, only values between 4-7 (7-point likert scale). 8.4: New marketing expertise, only values between 4-7.
Lower level of tacitness:
8.2: New product development expertise, only values between 1-3 (7-point likert scale). 8.1: New manufacturing and production expertise, only values between 1-3.
Welch-Satterthwait Test: assumes unequal variances between groups (Garson, 2016).
Analysis and results: with tacitness
Buyer
Supplier
perspective only
Analysis and results: with tacitness
To conclude:
1. There are no significant differences between the different tacitness groups.
2. Tacitness does not moderate: (a) the relationship between contracting and PACAP and (b) also
does not moderate the relationship between PACAP and explorative learning performance (for both perspectives).
Contracting:
- Insignificant value supplier à relational embeddedness and non-recoverable investments.
- Positive significant value buyer à trust, closeness and perception of opportunistic behavior.
Moderating effect of tacitness, between CTR and PACAP: insignificant values both buyer
and supplier à difficulty of writing down and formalizing tacit information into actual knowledge
(especially in early stages of relationships), incentives that could stimulate knowledge transfer.
PACAP positively influences the explorative learning performance
Moderating effect of tacitness, between PACAP and exploration: insignificant values both
buyer and supplier à high costs, no experience, short-term benefits and coordination difficulties.
Explorative learning performance positively influences exploitation Moderating effect of environmental turbulence:
- Positive moderating role of environmental turbulence on the relationship between PACAP and explorative learning performance (buyer only).
- Insignificant value supplier à flexibility in different industries, organizational forms and emerging
Discussion
Managerial implications Scientific implications/
conclusions Research limitations
1. Invest in a system and training that will allow and ensure the encoding process of tacit knowledge.
1. Tacitness does not moderate between contacting and PACAP, neither between PACAP and exploration.
2. Contracting positively
influences PACAP (buyer only).
1. Sample size (n=67 instead of n >70).
2. Adopt flexible organizational forms in environmental turbulent times.
3. PACAP positively influences explorative learning
performance.
4. Exploration and exploitation can occur at the same time and positively enhance each other.
2. Generalizability of the results (buyer data only Dutch).
3. Invest time and resources to
understand differences between buyer and supplier.
5. Environmental turbulence moderates, between PACAP and exploration (buyer only).
6. Different perceptions between buyer and supplier: PACAP and exploration.
3. Dimensions underlying
§ To test if environmental turbulence would moderate the relationship between explorative
learning performance and exploitative learning performance (not hypothesized) a post-hoc analysis was performed for both buyer and supplier perspectives.
To conclude: environmental turbulence does not moderate the relationship between
exploration and exploitation.
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit Knowledge: Some Suggestions for Operationalization. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 811-829. Baum, J. A., Li, S. S., & Usher, J. M. (2000). Making the next move: How experiential and vicarious learning shape the locations of chains' acquisitions.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (4), 766-801.
Garson, G.D. (2016). Partial Least Squares: Regression and Structural Equation Models. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.
Helfat, C. E., Mitchell, S., Peteraf, W., Singh, A., Teece, H., & Winter, D. J. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic chance in organizations. 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 Journal, 48, 999-1015.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), 53-70.
Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The design of Organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organizational Science, 3 (3),
383-397.
Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., & Lyles, M. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management
Journal, 22, 1139-1161
Leppälä, S. (2012). An Epistemological Perspective on Knowledge Transfers: From Tacitness to Capability and Reliability. Industry and Innovation, 19 (8), 631-647.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue),
45-62.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. Academy of Management Review, 27 (2),
185-203.
