دانلود رایگان مقاله تعادل ظرفیت جذب و نوآوری باز درون مرزی برای عملکرد نوآورانه پایدار

abstract

How can a firm develop new ideas and turn them into profitable innovations on a sustained basis? We address this fundamental issue in a novel way by developing an integrative framework of absorptive capacity (AC) and inbound open innovation that is rooted in the attention-based view of the firm. We specifically address why a balance between open and closed innovation is important from the perspective of absorptive capacity, and show how it may be brought about. Pursuing either open or closed inbound innovation alone may result in an imbalance between potential AC and realized AC as well as inward-looking AC and outward-looking AC, which will hinder innovative performance. We argue that practicing open and closed inbound innovation repeatedly and alternately by switching organizational attentions, and thus developing the associated AC, can facilitate balancing absorptive capacity and lead to innovative performance.

4. Discussion

of boundary conditions The validity of the current study's arguments are constrained by many boundary conditions which are laid out below. Future research studies should consider these conditions and adjust the current paper's theoretical framework from a variety of perspectives. 4.1. Exclusion of radical innovation The current paper excludes local search and radical innovation from the discussion. Focusing on the closed and open inbound innovation, our arguments may hold when we strictly confine the definition of closed inbound innovation involving distant technological domain and open inbound innovation same technological domain. As a result, radical innovation involving an outside organization in a different technology domain cannot be explained. However, it is likely that firms searching for external knowledge should deal with at least some amount of knowledge coming from a different domain and the decision of firms to look beyond their boundaries is likely to be driven by the need to search for knowledge from different technological boundaries. Therefore, completely excluding some degree of “radicalness” may be problematic in reality.