Giudice 2014

Journal of Knowledge Management
Directions of external knowledge search: investigating their different impact on firm performance in
high-technology industries
Jorge Cruz-Gonzlez Pedro Lpez-Sez Jos Emilio Navas-Lpez Miriam Delgado-Verde
Article information:
Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)
To cite this document:

Jorge Cruz-Gonzlez Pedro Lpez-Sez Jos Emilio Navas-Lpez Miriam Delgado-Verde , (2014),"Directions of external
knowledge search: investigating their different impact on firm performance in high-technology industries", Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 Iss 5 pp. 847 - 866
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2014-0243
Downloaded on: 16 February 2015, At: 22:47 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 79 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 258 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Prof. Manlio Del Giudice, Prof. Vincenzo Maggioni, Manlio Del Giudice, Vincenzo Maggioni, (2014),"Managerial practices
and operative directions of knowledge management within inter-firm networks: a global view", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 18 Iss 5 pp. 841-846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2014-0264
Prof. Manlio Del Giudice, Prof. Vincenzo Maggioni, Daniel Jimnez-Jimnez, Micaela Martnez-Costa, Raquel Sanz-Valle,
(2014),"Knowledge management practices for innovation: a multinational corporations perspective", Journal of Knowledge
Prof. Manlio Del Giudice, Prof. Vincenzo Maggioni, Dinesh Rathi, Lisa M. Given, Eric Forcier, (2014),"Interorganisational
partnerships and knowledge sharing: the perspective of non-profit organisations (NPOs)", Journal of Knowledge
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 191614 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Directions of external knowledge search:

investigating their different impact on firm
performance in high-technology industries
Jorge Cruz-Gonzlez, Pedro Lpez-Sez, Jos Emilio Navas-Lpez and

Miriam Delgado-Verde
Jorge Cruz-Gonzlez is
based at Department of
Organization and
Management, CUNEF
Business School, Madrid,
Spain. Pedro Lpez-Sez
is an Associate Professor,
Jos Emilio Navas-Lpez
is a Professor and
Miriam Delgado-Verde
are all based at
Department of Business
Administration,
Complutense de Madrid
University, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
Purpose The aim of the paper is to identify the different directions of external knowledge search and
to investigate their individual effect on performance at the firm level.
Design/methodology/approach The empirical study is based on survey data gathered from two
distinct informants of 248 large- and medium-sized high-tech manufacturing Spanish firms. In dealing
with concerns on simultaneity and reverse causality, perceived time-lags among dependent and
independent variables were introduced. Quantitative methods based on questionnaire answers were
used.
Findings Findings reveal six distinct external search patterns and indicate that, while market sources
such as customers and competitors are positively associated with performance, knowledge acquired
from general information sources, other firms beyond the core business and patents and databases
have no significant effect. Moreover, knowledge obtained from science and technology organizations
and from suppliers displays an inversed U-shaped effect on firm performance.
Research limitations/implications Conclusions can only be generalized to high-tech manufacturing
firms from developed countries and, although well-established methodological procedures were followed,
the nature of the study remains cross-sectional. Yet, an important implication emerges from this work: more
openness to external knowledge is not always better. It is necessary to carefully evaluate the potential gains
and pains of each type of partner and source.
Practical implications This research provides guidance to managers about how to shape their
companies inter-organizational networks, i.e. the specific external agents on which they should focus,
as well as the efforts they should devote to each of these key partners.
Originality/value By considering distinct directions of external knowledge search instead of a single
dimension, the paper contributes to shed some more light to the mixed results reported by the scarce
empirical studies that have investigated the effect of openness towards external knowledge on
performance at the firm level.
Keywords Inter-organizational learning, External knowledge search, Search strategies,
Firm performance, High-technology firms
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Received 17 June 2014

Revised 18 June 2014
Accepted 19 June 2014
Theorists on open innovation and related fields have highlighted the benefits of learning
from external sources (Chesbrough, 2003; Laursen, 2012). Supporting their reasoning,
there is a wide empirical evidence showing that increasing openness towards external
knowledge increases firms innovation performance (Ebersberger and Herstad, 2011;
Escribano et al., 2009; Leiponen and Helfat, 2011; Voudouris et al., 2012; Yu, 2013; Wang
and Hsu, 2014). However, some scholars have claimed that, besides its alleged benefits,
relying on knowledge located outside firm boundaries is not costless (Huizingh, 2011; West
and Bogers, 2014). Yet, by exclusively focussing on innovation performance variables, the
DOI 10.1108/JKM-06-2014-0243
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014, pp. 847-866, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
PAGE 847
above studies only report on the benefits of external learning, thus leaving aside its
associated costs.
The effect of openness on overall firm performance is much less clear in the literature.
Surprisingly, only a few studies have empirically addressed this relationship, and they
provide quite contradictory findings (Belderbos et al., 2010; Faems et al., 2010; Hung and
Chou, 2013; Sisodiya et al., 2013). Conflicting results may be because all these
contributions have considered the degree of openness towards external knowledge as a
one-dimensional construct, thus relying on a single variable for capturing it. This procedure
entails an important loss of information, as it does not enable taking into account the great
heterogeneity that may exist among distinct types of sources (Cappelli et al., 2014). As
showed by some recent studies, different kinds of external sources distinctly affect diverse
facets of firms innovation performance (Cappelli et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2011; Khler
et al., 2012; Mention, 2011; Nieto and Santamara, 2007; Tdtling et al., 2009; Tsai and
Hsieh, 2009), thus indicating that different sources involve different benefits in terms of the
complementary knowledge they can bring to the organization. But different sources also
entail different costs and risks in terms of search, mutual understanding, partnership,
knowledge transformation, potential knowledge leakage and so on. If the disadvantages
associated to a given partner or external source are equal to or surpass its benefits, then
it will be ineffective or even counterproductive for achieving the ultimate goal of the
company: improving its final performance. However, to the knowledge of the authors, no
prior empirical research has investigated how different types of external sources relate to
overall firm performance.
Bearing in mind that the organizational resources that a firm can devote to learn from its
environment are scarce and that managers must make decisions about their allocation
(Mina et al., 2014), insights about where to look for external knowledge and how effective
it can be to improve overall firm performance should constitute a key task for the
management of knowledge. The present paper tries to shed some light on this issue by
addressing the following question: what are the different directions of external knowledge
search and how they impact on firm performance? Quantitative analyses based on survey
data of 248 high-technology manufacturing Spanish firms reveal six different directions of
search according to the types of sources they include. In a second step, important
differences were found among the six directions regarding their individual contribution to
overall firm performance. These findings contribute at providing an explanation to the
mixed results reported in prior literature regarding the effect of openness towards external
knowledge on overall firm performance. In addition, they derive important implications that
should be taken into account by managers when designing their firms strategies for
inter-organizational learning.
The paper is divided into four additional sections. The next section summarizes prior
research about the influence of external knowledge acquisition on performance and
explores the literature on directions of search. Then, sampling frame, data collection
procedures and measures of variables are explained. The fourth section reports the
empirical findings. After discussing them, the conclusion section highlights the implications
for research and practice, as well as limitations and future research directions.
2. Background
2.1 External knowledge acquisition and firm performance
Based on the assumption that no single organization, not even the largest, nor the most
innovative, possesses all relevant knowledge to keep abreast of rapid advances of
technologies and market demands, recent research has pointed towards external learning
as a key mechanism for refreshing and complementing firms knowledge endowments
(Leiponen and Helfat, 2010; Voudouris et al., 2012). It has been argued that acquiring
external knowledge is crucial for capability reconfiguration and firms strategic renewal
(Lavie, 2006), provides the means for conducting exploratory activities and expanding
PAGE 848 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
Openness towards external knowledge may not only provide

important benets for rms but also that external learning is
costly and that there are cognitive limits to acquisition and
assimilation of external knowledge.
current knowledge domains (Bierly and Chakrabarti, 1996) and also enables the
recognition of opportunities and threats, serving as a basis for developing new market and
technological capabilities (Danneels, 2008; Narteh, 2008).
By focussing on internal learning, firms will develop their own core competences and will
be in a better position for appropriating the resulting rents (Bierly and Chakrabarti, 1996).
However, an excessive focus on internal learning will narrow the firms knowledge base, so
increasing the risk that its core competencies evolve into core rigidities (Leonard-Barton,
1992). On the contrary, external learning improves organizational knowledge and keeps the
firm abreast of new technologies and/or emerging demands, thus boosting its flexibility and
adaptability to environmental changes. In other words, by spanning organizational
boundaries, firms can go beyond local search and avoid competence traps (Rosenkopf
and Nerkar, 2001). Thus, the gains from external knowledge acquisition are especially
worthwhile in high-technology industries where environmental dynamism can rapidly erode
the value of firms current knowledge and capabilities (Lpez-Sez et al., 2010; Uotila et al.,
2009; Wang and Hsu, 2014).
External learning is also recognized as a useful way for leveraging firms internal knowledge
(Grimpe and Sofka, 2009; Voudouris et al., 2012). However, for this leverage to take place,
firms need a certain absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) to combine (Kogut
and Zander, 1992) and integrate (Grant, 1996) internal and external knowledge. This
transformation (Todorova and Durisin, 2007) of externally acquired knowledge into
internalized knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Lpez-Sez et al., 2010) may take important costs
for the firm.
Prior knowledge in related fields is needed to identify, assimilate and apply new external
information properly (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Chen et al., 2011). Furthermore,
integration mechanisms and a certain level of shared communication, that can be costly to
develop, are also required (West and Bogers, 2014; Zahra and George, 2002). Some of the
external knowledge sources may be hard to interpret if they are quite distant from the firm
current knowledge base (Khler et al., 2012). This requires additional investments in mutual
understanding. Moreover, employees can show a not invented here syndrome (Katz and
Allen, 1982) towards them. A smooth integration may need suitable incentives,
organizational structures, managerial and cultural support (Lichtenthaler et al., 2011),
which are costly and time-consuming.
As a firm increases its degree of openness, environmental scanning takes more time and
resources (Oerlemans et al., 2013), and the costs tied to information search and partnering
also rise (Sisodiya et al., 2013). With growing openness, managers face more complex
decisions about allocating financial and cognitive resources for inter-organizational
learning. Each kind of external relationship may require different management approaches
and organizational practices (Laursen and Salter, 2006), and increasing the variety of
external sources to which the firm is connected will need a wider set of management skills
(Faems et al., 2010), especially if intellectual property problems (Grimpe and Kaiser, 2010)
or preventing undesired knowledge spillovers are involved (Chen et al., 2011; Grimpe and
Sofka, 2009).
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
PAGE 849
Previous discussion leads us to conclude that openness towards external knowledge may
not only provide important benefits for firms but also that external learning is costly and that
there are cognitive limits to acquisition and assimilation of external knowledge. Yet, prior
empirical research has devoted much more effort to the first part of the story and has been
mainly focussed on how a higher variety of partners and connections to external knowledge
sources influences different facets of innovation performance (Delgado-Verde et al., 2011;
Ebersberger and Herstad, 2011; Escribano et al., 2009; Martnez-Caas et al., 2012;
Oerlemans et al., 2013; Wang and Hsu, 2014). Empirical papers addressing the impact of
openness on firm performance are very scarce. This kind of evidence assessing the final
impact of openness (i.e. confronting its benefits and costs) is required to provide a useful
guidance for managers who try to configure learning networks beyond their organizational
boundaries.
From the scarce evidence on this topic, it cannot be concluded which level of openness is
more advisable due to contradictory results. On one hand, Hung and Chiangs (2010)
findings suggest that firms proclivity to open innovation increases perceived firm
performance, and Lichtenthaler et al. (2011) report that a higher absorption of external
technology improves return on sales. On the other hand, Goerzen and Beamish (2005) find
that the diversity of a firms alliance network hurts firm performance, and Faems et al. (2010)
show that the diversity of the technology alliances of the firm negatively affects profit
margins. Recent evidence keeps on this contradictory track. Results reported by Hung and
Chou (2013) and Sisodiya et al. (2013) show that a higher degree of inbound open
innovation improves long-term firm performance, measured through Tobins q, whereas
Belderbos et al. (2010) found that this performance measure is negatively related to the
ratio of collaborative technological activities over a firms technology portfolio.
A common issue in all these works is that they conceptualize and measure the degree of
openness as a one-dimensional construct. Nonetheless, it should be taken into account
that firms may rely on quite different external sources involving different benefits and
different costs. This could explain the lack of consensus in prior empirical research
regarding the effect of external knowledge acquisition on firm performance. Accordingly,
the aim of this paper is to go beyond the aggregation restriction imposed in prior studies
(i.e. capturing quite heterogeneous sources with a single variable) by considering the
distinct search directions that organizations can follow. Thus, the study focusses on
external knowledge search by companies, which constitutes an initial phase of the complex
and broader process of inter-organizational learning. Specifically, it addresses the question
of where to search.
2.2 Different directions of external knowledge search
There exist several possible sources and partners from whom companies may obtain new
information and knowledge. Von Hippel (1988a) pioneered the study of customers,
suppliers, competitors and research organizations as external sources for
inter-organizational learning. Since then, these four sources have been the most
extensively studied in prior empirical research (Cappelli et al., 2014; Grimpe and Sofka,
2009; Nieto and Santamara, 2007; Tsai and Wang, 2009; Un et al., 2010). Literature has
also pointed towards other sources as providers of valuable external knowledge (Cassiman
and Veugelers, 2006; Chen et al., 2011; Laursen and Salter, 2006; Leiponen and Helfat,
2011), such as other companies (within the same industry or not), research organizations
distinct from universities (e.g. public and private research organizations, commercial
Firms may rely on quite different external sources involving

different benets and different costs.
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
laboratories and R&D enterprises), experts and consultants, professional associations,

fairs and exhibitions, conferences and meetings, scientific and trade/technical
publications, patents or public databases alien to the firm[1].
Each external source will be more suitable for obtaining certain benefits, i.e. different
sources can be used for different purposes (Cappelli et al., 2014, p. 116). Similarly,
different sources will also have their own disadvantages in terms of difficulty of access,
integration costs or specific risks. This may significantly reduce their potential contribution
to final performance, or even surpass their benefits, so resulting in diminishing
performance. Thus, besides deciding about the degree of openness towards external
knowledge, a key question for the management of inter-organizational learning is where to
search. Answering this question requires a careful understanding of the specific
advantages and disadvantages associated with the different types of external sources.
Due to their proximity to the firm from a downstream position, customers may constitute an
appropriate direction of external knowledge search for seeking feedback and suggestions
that can be easily incorporated into firms products (Grimpe and Sofka, 2009). Lead users
(von Hippel, 1988b) allow identifying changes in market trends and new market segments.
Close contact with innovative users, especially in early stages of product development, can
provide concepts for new product and also a better selection of the most promising ones
(Chen et al., 2011; Nieto and Santamara, 2007). Thus, absorbing knowledge from
customers may reduce the risks of new product introduction, especially when complexity
and novelty are key issues (Amara and Landry, 2005; Cappelli et al., 2014). The main
problems when firms try to absorb knowledge from customer are that identifying key
customers can be difficult, and even when they can contact them, their knowledge can
suffer from tacitness or stickiness (von Hippel, 1988b). Moreover, too much attention to
current customers can lead to myopia for detecting future trends or latent market needs
(Khler et al., 2012).
Knowledge of suppliers is usually easier to understand and access (Sofka and Grimpe,
2010). It can help in improving and innovating not only internal processes but also product
design (Cappelli et al., 2014). The benefits of a proper supplier network include cost
reduction, faster learning, quicker product development and the co-creation of specific
resources when evolutionary relationships are maintained (Khler et al., 2012; Mention,
2011; Nieto and Santamara, 2007). The main problem of suppliers as external knowledge
source it that competitors can also collaborate with them, losing knowledge uniqueness
(Sofka and Grimpe, 2010). The fact that any knowledge that a firm shares with its suppliers
can reach potential competitors is also present in some cases.
Using competitors as a direction for external knowledge search can provide valuable
information about their current product portfolio. Their knowledge is not difficult to identify
and understand because it is rooted on products, and on a common technological and
market context (Khler et al., 2012). This allows implementing a quick and cheap imitation
strategy, but leaves the firm as a follower, always a step behind from technology and
market leaders, not only in novelty terms but also in economic returns, and differentiation
chances (Sofka and Grimpe, 2010). A quite different approach is cooperation with rivals,
which is usually performed with the aim to obtain synergies in basic research, as well as to
share risks and costs (Mention, 2011; Zeng et al., 2010). This kind of cooperation is likely
to take place outside the competitors area of influence, such as regulatory changes or
establishment of standards (Tether, 2002). In other fields, such as product innovation,
collaboration with competitors has a great risk of information leakage (Nieto and
Santamara, 2007).
Research institutions as universities can also be considered as a potential direction for
external knowledge search. These kinds of agents develop cutting-edge knowledge in their
scientific expertise fields which can be very helpful for developing relevant and radical
innovations (Chen et al., 2011; Nieto and Santamara, 2007; Tsai and Wang, 2009).
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
PAGE 851
However, although academic research may seem a perfect complement for firm
knowledge, it can also be considered as distant and harder to understand (Kaufmann and
Tdtling, 2001). Scientific knowledge is not directly applicable, and its successful
integration will become more complex and costly (Boehm and Hogan, 2013). Taking
advantage from inter-organizational learning when focussing on scientific institutions will
need important investments to develop a specific absorptive capacity (Cohen and
Levinthal, 1990) based on close collaboration with academics that allows a shared
language and interpretation rules.
All the previously mentioned directions for external knowledge search can be managed
from a network perspective. In addition, firms may also establish collaboration networks
with other companies coming from similar or quite different industries for benefiting from the
integration of knowledge coming from different fields of expertise (Chen et al., 2011; Sidhu
et al., 2007). Each direction will require a different kind of network structure, relationships
and a specific kind of social capital (Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010). Accessing deep
knowledge from other agents may need social capital, although there are other kind of
relationships and knowledge origins that should also be taken into account, even when they
cannot be managed in the same way as the previous ones. Other sources of knowledge
that provide general or free access, as conferences, trade fairs, industry associations,
publications, etc. should also be considered, as they have demonstrated positive effects
on the commercial success of firm innovation (Khler et al., 2012). However, these
knowledge sources are equally available for competitors, so they can also benefit from
them (Sofka and Grimpe, 2010), impeding to obtain a sustainable competitive advantage
this way.
All contributions mentioned in this section are focussed on variables related to innovation
performance, so their results only take into account the benefits of collaborating/acquiring
information from each external knowledge source. However, as highlighted, distinct types
of partners and sources do not only differ significantly with respect to the opportunities they
provide and their contribution to recipient firms organizational learning. Each kind of
agents/sources also implies different challenges, has its own costs, according to the
processes needed for accessing, interpreting and utilizing that knowledge, and involves its
own risks. Accordingly, in this paper, it is argued that the impact of each type of sources
on overall firm performance, i.e. the difference among its benefits and its costs, may differ
dramatically.
3. Methods
3.1 Sample and data collection
This study gathered survey and archival data on large- and medium-sized high-technology
manufacturing Spanish firms. SABI database[2] was used to perform the sampling frame.
Authors decided to focus on manufacturing firms because these companies acquire
knowledge from a wide range of sources (Laursen and Salter, 2006; Lichtenthaler, 2009).
However, to reduce intrafirm heterogeneity (Pla-Barber and Alegre, 2007), only hightechnology industries were selected. Specifically, the study examined firms operating in the
seven most R&D-intensive manufacturing sectors (NACE codes 20 chemical; 21
pharmaceutical; 26 computer, electronic and optical products; 27 electrical equipment; 28
machinery and equipment n.e.c.; 29 motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers; and 30 other
transport equipment).
The empirical analysis was performed on firms with at least 50 full-time employees and 5
years old. Neither small companies nor new ventures were studied because it can be
difficult to observe a high degree of external knowledge acquisition by smaller and/or
younger organizations (Foss et al., 2011; Lichtenthaler, 2009), and also because
antecedents of firms success in new ventures may differ from established companies
(Zahra and Bogner, 2000). Besides, following recent empirical research (De Clercq et al.,
2013; Oerlemans et al., 2013), to reduce concerns on endogeneity and reverse causality,
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
it was explicitly indicated in the questionnaire the specific year or time period to which each
block of questions was referred. In addition, lags between independent and dependent
variables were introduced in the questionnaire (items used for capturing independent and
control variables were referred to the past five years, whereas those used for measuring
firm performance were referred to the past year). This procedure also captures the fact that
some time is required before externally acquired knowledge will affect firm performance.
Finally, to increase comparability among firms in the population, the authors manually
checked all cases to ensure that non-profit organizations and firms that were mainly
distributors were not included. After this screening, 1,142 firms shaped the population.
Main data were collected through telephone survey performed by a polling company. This
company conducted interviews using CATI, which enables real-time verification of
numerical responses and rotation of item lists. To avoid common method bias, the study
collected data from two distinct informants per firm. The first informant was the chief
executive officer (CEO) or, alternatively, the head of corporate marketing or sales director,
who was asked about firm performance. The head of R&D was identified as the second
informant and was asked about directions of search as well as some control variables.
The survey was conducted from April to July 2012. After this period, 252 matched pairs with
the data from both respondents were obtained. Four were eliminated as invalid. Thus, the
final sample comprised 248 firms (21.7 per cent as response rate), and it showed a spread
across industries quite similar to the observed in the population. In the final sample,
average firm size was 158.07 full-time employees (s.d. 250.62) and average age was
30.88 years (s.d. 17.77). To test for representativeness and non-response bias, potential
differences between final sample and total population, as well as between respondents and
non-respondents, were examined. t-tests showed no significant differences based on the
number of full-time employees and firms age.
3.2 Measures
3.2.1 Measuring firm performance. Firm performance was measured through a subjective
scale. Objective measures have the advantage of avoiding potential problems of
self-assessment. On the contrary, subjective scales may provide a closer and more substantive
view of how the company performs if they are posed in terms of comparison to its close
competitors (Andersen, 2004; Lichtenthaler, 2009). In addition, subjective scales may
comprise several items, so different aspects of a firms performance may be considered
instead of a single indicator. These kinds of subjective measures have been extensively used
in the literature (see Newbert, 2008 for an overview). Several authors have shown that
self-assessed measures are highly correlated with objective performance indicators
(Andersen, 2004; Dess and Robinson, 1984; Lichtenthaler, 2009; Powell, 1992; Sidhu et al.,
2007). Thus, this study captured firm performance via Venkatramans (1989) widely used
subjective scale. Besides developing the scale, this author demonstrated its reliability and
validity. Later, De Luca and Atuahene-Gima (2007) demonstrated the discriminant validity of
the scale with respect to the used for measuring innovation performance. Subsequent
publications have used this subjective scale (Chiva and Alegre, 2009; De Clercq et al., 2013).
The scale comprises six items. They were addressed to the first informant (CEO).
Specifically, respondents were asked to rate, on a seven-point Likert-type scale, their firms
performance in the last tax year (2011) compared to its main competitors in terms of return
of sales, profit growth, return on assets, sales growth, market share growth and cash flow.
As expected, exploratory factor analysis grouped the six items in a single factor. All factor
loadings were clearly higher than 0.7, and Cronbachs alpha coefficient indicated a good
internal consistency of the scale ( 0.89). The final measure consisted on the average of
the scores on the six items.
3.2.2 Capturing the directions of external knowledge search. Several prior studies have
relied on patent citations for measuring external knowledge flows and inter-organizational
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
PAGE 853
learning variables (Ahuja and Katila, 2004; Belderbos et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2007;
Phelps, 2010; Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 2001). However, this approach has important
limitations (Khler et al., 2012; Laursen and Salter, 2006). Particularly important for this
study is that, beyond the scientific character or not of a citation, or its distance in terms
of patent classes (Ahuja and Katila, 2004; Phelps, 2010), patent citation statistics do not
reveal the relationship between two firms (e.g. whether they are suppliers or competitors)
and leave out several important external knowledge sources.
Thus, following recent empirical research (Chen et al., 2011; Khler et al., 2012; Mention,
2011; Sofka and Grimpe, 2010; Tsai and Hsieh, 2009; Zeng et al., 2010), this study also
relied on survey questions for capturing the distinct orientations or directions of external
knowledge search the different types of external knowledge sources of firms in the
sample. Specifically, respondents were asked to evaluate, on a seven-point Likert-type
scale, the importance of 16 external sources as providers of information and knowledge for
their firm during the past five years (2007-2011). These questions were addressed to the
second informant (Head of R&D). In the questionnaire, a 1 means that the company did
not use the given source, while a 7 means that it is a key source of information and
knowledge for the organization. The 16 sources were identified based on prior publications
(Cassiman and Veugelers, 2006; Chen et al., 2011; Laursen and Salter, 2006; Leiponen and
Helfat, 2010; OECD, 2005; Sidhu et al., 2007).
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on these sources to identify the different search
patterns. The determinant of correlations matrix was quite close to zero (0.002), the
KaiserMeyerOlkin indicator of sampling adequacy was largely higher than 0.7 (0.857) and
the chi-square for Bartletts test of sphericity (1489.14) was highly statistically significant (p
0.001). In sum, these results indicate that factor analysis is suitable for the data.
As there is no reason to assume orthogonality among different directions, oblique promax
rotation was chosen. An initial factor analysis (available upon request) revealed five factors
with an eigenvalue greater than one explaining 67.3 per cent of total variance. However,
due to the low factor loading of knowledge acquisition from suppliers (lower than 0.5) on the
fifth factor (along with customers and competitors) and the poor internal consistency of this
factor ( 0.534), the analysis was forced to give a six-factor solution. Table I shows the
main results of this procedure. It can be seen how the aforementioned problems are not
present in this second solution. There are no confusing loadings, and the lower Cronbachs
alpha is 0.655, which can be considered acceptable.
The identified factors explain 72.5 per cent of total variance. The first one is shaped by scienceand technology-driven organizations, such as government research organizations, private
research institutes, universities and other higher education institutions and commercial
laboratories and R&D enterprises. Factor analysis also included experts and consultants within
this set. Both in the initial five-factor solution, as in the final six-factor solution, experts and
consultants unequivocally loaded in this first factor. Furthermore, the internal consistency of the
first factor diminishes when experts and consultants are not included ( 0.817). Authors
attribute this result to the high-technology character of the sample. It seems reasonable that the
experts and consultants contacted by this kind of firm tend to be focussed on science and
technology issues. Accordingly, this factor was labelled as science and technology
organizations. External knowledge sources loading on the second factor are conferences and
meetings, scientific journals and trade/technical publications, fairs and exhibitions and
professional and industry associations. Authors refer to this factor as general information
sources. Factor three includes knowledge obtained from other enterprises within the same
industry that are not direct competitors, as well as from other enterprises operating in other
industries. This factor is names other firms beyond the core business. Patents and public
databases not belonging to the firm load highly on the fourth factor, so authors interpret this
factor as patents and databases. The fifth factor is labelled as market sources, as it is
shaped by knowledge acquired from competitors and customers. Finally, suppliers are
considered the sixth external knowledge search direction.
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
Table I Structure matrix and Cronbachs alphas

Factor 1
Science and
technology
organizations
External knowledge source

Government research organizations
Private research institutes
Universities or other higher education
institutions
Commercial laboratories/R&D enterprises
Experts/consultants
Conferences, meetings
Scientific journals and trade/technical
publications
Fairs, exhibitions
Professional and industry/trade associations
Other enterprises in other industries
Other enterprises in the industry not being
direct competitors
Patents
Public databases alien to the firm
Competitors
Clients or customers
Suppliers
Cronbachs alpha
Factor 2
General
information
sources
Factor 3
Other firms
beyond the
core business
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
Patents and
databases
Market
sources
Suppliers
0.862
0.826
0.783
0.669
0.605
0.826
0.813
0.780
0.706
0.884
0.835
0.885
0.775
0.848
0.778
0.820
0.792
0.765
0.717
0.655
0.836
n/a
Notes: n 248; explained variance: 72.5 per cent; extraction method: principal-component analysis; rotation method: promax with
Kaiser normalization; factor loadings smaller than 0.6 are not displayed; items appear ordered by their loadings
3.2.3 Control variables. Several variables were included into the analysis to control for other
factors that may influence the estimation results. Specifically, the natural logarithm of the
number of full-time employees was included to control for firms size. The age of firms,
measured as the natural logarithm of years since establishment, was also included as the
control variable. As firm performance may be affected by its past performance, it was
included as the average return on assets during the previous four years (2007-2010). A
dummy variable capturing whether a firm is part of a group was also considered as control
variable. The firms average exports intensity during the past five years (2007-2011) was
captured as the natural logarithm of (1 total exports to total sales). Similarly, average firm
R&D intensity in the past five years (2007-2011) was measured as the natural logarithm of
(1 R&D intensity). Finally, the study controlled for two relevant industry effects. First, the
level of industry R&D by including the average industry total R&D expenses divided by total
industry sales during the past four years (2008-2011). Second, the standard deviation of
the sales growth of firms in the same industry during the previous four years (2007-2010)
to control for environmental instability.
4. Results
Authors relied on ordinary least squares regression models to estimate the determinants of
performance at the firm level. Table II reports descriptive statistics, Pearsons correlations
and variance inflation factors (VIFs) for all variables. All pair-wise correlations are lower than
0.5 and the maximum VIF is 1.71, which is well below the recommended ceiling of 10
(Kutner et al., 2004). These results lead to conclude that multicollinearity is not a serious
concern in this study. Before performing the estimations, all independent variables were
standardized. This procedure allows for a meaningful comparison among variables
measured with different scales (Cohen et al., 2003).
Table III shows the results of the regression models estimations. Model 1 only includes
control variables. Model 2 adds the direct effect of the six identified directions of external
knowledge search. Starting with the effect of controls, firms age seems to harm its
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
PAGE 855
Table II Descriptive statistics, Pearsons correlations, and variance inflation factors
Variable
Mean
SD
10
11
12
Firm performance
4.23 1.10 1
Size
4.71 0.70 0.08 1
Age
3.31 0.58 0.08 0.21 1
Past performance
3.48 10.43 0.02 0.12 0.02 1
Part of a group
0.60 0.49 0.14 0.26 0.01 0.06 1
Exports
3.29 1.39 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.05 1
Firm R&D
1.55 1.08 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.06 0.24 1
Industry R&D
4.45 0.59 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.16 1
Environmental instability 1.73 1.18 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.34 1
Science and technology
organizations
3.57 1.38 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.07 0.07 1
General information
sources
3.97 1.36 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.03 0.11 0.47 1
Other firms beyond the
core business
3.23 1.46 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.45 0.43 1
Patents and databases
2.76 1.54 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.46 0.40 0.38
Market sources
4.54 1.37 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.17 0.32 0.38 0.31
Suppliers
4.58 1.59 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.33 0.35 0.14
VIF
1.21 1.12 1.05 1.11 1.11 1.17 1.28 1.25 1.69 1.71 1.51
13
14
15
1
0.30 1
0.24 0.27 1
1.49 1.39 1.50
Notes: n 248; all correlations above 0.13 are significant at p 0.05
performance ( 0.157; p 0.05), whereas the fact of being part of a group is found to
have a positive effect ( 0.138; p 0.05). Environmental turbulence also seems to
positively affect firm performance ( 0.182; p 0.05). The effects of other control
variables appear to be less robust. In this sense, the coefficient of the firms exports
intensity is positive, but only marginally significant ( 0.111; p 0.15). Moreover, the
positive effect of firms size only becomes statistically significant in Model 2 ( 0.140;
p 0.1).
Regarding the effect of the six observed search directions, inclusion of the six types of
sources in Model 2 results in a statistically significant increase in explanatory power (R2
Table III Results of OLS analyses
Dependent variable: firm performance
M1
M2
M3
Constant
Size
Age
Past performance
Part of a group
Exports
Firm R&D
Industry R&D
Environmental instability
Science and technology organizations
General information sources
Other firms beyond the core business
Patents and databases
Market sources
Suppliers
Science and technology organizations2
Suppliers2
R2
R2
F-Statistic
DurbinWatson Statistic
4.231****
0.100
0.127*
0.035
0.135*
0.110****
0.046
0.093
0.194***
4.231***
0.140*
0.157**
0.055
0.138**
0.111****
0.050
0.100
0.182**
0.268***
0.030
0.036
0.069
0.136*
0.078
4.509***
0.101
0.177***
0.055
0.169**
0.109****
0.036
0.106****
0.173**
0.269***
0.009
0.001
0.090
0.174**
0.004
0.158**
0.121**
0.169
0.048***
2.935***
1.910
0.074
2.392**
0.121
0.047**
2.300***
Notes: n 248; ****p 0.15; ***p 0.01; **p 0.05; *p 0.1; unstandardized regression
coefficients are reported
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
0.047; p 0.05). Findings indicate that only two directions have a significant effect on firm
performance. On the one hand, the coefficient of market sources is positive and statistically
significant ( 0.136; p 0.1). On the other hand, the coefficient of science and
technology organizations is also significant, but it is negative ( 0.268; p 0.01).
External knowledge obtained from general information sources, patents and databases,
suppliers, as well as other firms beyond the core business is found to have no significant
effect on firm performance (p 0.1 in all cases).
To some extent, authors were surprised by some of the above results. Specifically, the
strong negative effect of science and technology organizations and the non-significant
effect of knowledge acquired from suppliers on firm performance were unexpected. These
results are not consistent with the large amount of evidence showing a positive influence of
both types of sources on innovation performance (Grimpe and Sofka, 2009; Leiponen and
Helfat, 2011; Nieto and Santamara, 2007; Sofka and Grimpe, 2010; Khler et al., 2012).
Consequently, authors decided to inquire whether the nature of the effect of certain
directions of search on firm performance could be more complex that a mere linear
relationship and investigated the existence of potential curvilinear effects. Hence, in a new
estimation model, the squared terms of the six variables measuring search directions were
introduced into the equation. In all cases, variables were standardized prior to creating the
respective squared terms (Cohen et al., 2003).
Model 3 in Table III summarizes this new estimation by only including those squared terms
that resulted statistically significant values. The coefficient of market sources remains
positive and its significance level slightly increases ( 0.174; p 0.05). The main effect
of knowledge obtained from science and technology organizations continues to be
negative and statistically significant ( 0.269; p 0.01). However, the new estimation
reveals a significant negative coefficient of the squared term of this search pattern (
0.158; p 0.01). This negative coefficient of the squared term indicates that the effect of
knowledge acquired from science and technology organizations on firm performance is
inverse U shaped. Moreover, partial differentiation indicates that performance/ science
and technology organizations 0.269 0.158* (2* science and technology
organizations), which is zero when science and technology organizations is 0.851. Thus,
only when knowledge acquired from science and technology organizations is lower than
0.851 standard deviations below its mean-standardized value of zero, additional
investments in acquiring knowledge from this kind of organization have a positive effect on
overall firm performance. Beyond that level, additional efforts in learning from science and
technology organizations will harm firm performance. On the other hand, the coefficient of
the main effect of suppliers remains non-significant in Model 3 ( 0.004; p 0.1).
Furthermore, the coefficient of the squared term of suppliers is negative and statistically
significant ( 0.121; p 0.01), which, as in the case of science and technology
organizations, indicates that the relationship between knowledge obtained from suppliers
and firm-level performance describes an inverse U shaped. Partial differentiation shows
that performance/ suppliers 0.121* (2* suppliers), which is zero when knowledge
acquired from suppliers, at its mean-standardized value of zero, is positive for the lower
range of supplier values, and is negative for the higher range. Importantly, inclusion of the
two squared terms in Model 3 leads to increase explanatory power of the estimation (R2
0.048; p 0.01).
To ease visual interpretation of the two curvilinear effects, Figures 1 and 2 show the plots
of the impact of knowledge acquired from science and technology organizations and
suppliers, respectively, on perceived firm performance.
5. Discussion of findings
From a sample of 248 high-technology manufacturing Spanish firms, quantitative analyses
based on survey data have shown that companies may follow six distinct patterns or
directions when they span their external boundaries in search for new knowledge:
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
PAGE 857
Figure 1 The effect of knowledge acquisition from science and technology

organizations on firm performance
Firm performance
4.5
3.5
3
2
Figure 2 The effect of external knowledge acquisition from suppliers on firm

performance
4.6
Firm performance
Knowledge acquisition from science and technology organizations
4.4
4.2
3.8
2
Knowledge acquisition from suppliers
1. science and technology organizations as government or public research centres,

universities, laboratories or specialized consultants;
2. general information sources as conferences, meetings, specialized journals and
publications, fairs and exhibitions or industry associations;
3. other firms beyond the core business, either within the same industry or not;
4. patents and databases;
5. market sources as customers and competitors; and
6. suppliers.
Analysis of the effects of each direction on perceived firm performance shows that three of
them (general information sources, firms beyond the core business, and patents and
databases) do not have any impact on firms final performance. Explanations for this can
come from the fact that open access sources of information, as general information sources
or patents and databases, may become a standard in the industry, thus providing a basis
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
Contrary to the growing trend of increasing the degree of

openness towards external knowledge in companies, this
study shows that being more open does not always mean
better for rms.
for competitive parity, but not for competitive advantage. In support of this reasoning,
Amara and Landry (2005) found in a similar context that a higher acquisition of information
from generally available sources did not increase the chance of developing product or
process innovations that significantly differ from those previously developed by other firms.
In the case of collaborative networks with other firms beyond the core business, although
the benefits may be important in terms of complementary knowledge resources (Sidhu
et al., 2007), the costs tied to searching the adequate partner and interpreting and
transforming distant knowledge may offset them.
For the pattern related to market sources, which includes learning form customers and
competitors, it was found to have a positive influence on firm performance. This means that,
when considering connections with providers of market knowledge, the benefits surpass
their costs. Thus, increasing information channels with these kinds of agents is always
advisable for high-technology firms, as it is the case of this study because they allow
monitoring industrial trends, not only from the supply side but also from the demand one.
The issue of myopia seems not to be a problem in the case of customers of high-tech
industries. Inter-organizational learning from customers and competitors is the key for firm
adaptation to the environment, and it shows a clear effect on firm performance according
to the evolutionary arguments (Laursen and Salter, 2006).
When assessing the impact of suppliers and science and technology organizations on firm
performance, an inversed U-shaped relationship was found. This means that networking
with suppliers enhances final performance, but there is a point beyond which closer
relationships harm it. There exist different explanations for this. One comes from the fact
that different competitors may work with the same suppliers, so a closer relation may
increase the risk of undesired knowledge spill-over, and also the costs to prevent this to
happen. Another is that a too strong collaboration can lead to a pseudo-vertical
integration and its cons, especially the lack of flexibility due to costly investments in
specialized assets for maintaining the relationship.
Connections with science and technology organizations can also easily become harmful for
firm performance beyond certain depth of relationship. Although scientific knowledge
possessed by these organizations can hold a great potential for innovation (Cappelli et al.,
2014; Sofka and Grimpe, 2010), it appears to be very distant to business knowledge.
Consequently, its interpretation and absorption becomes extremely costly and its potential
benefits are surpassed very soon. Thus, some degree of interaction is advisable for being
aware of new advances in the frontiers of knowledge that could constitute the seed of future
developments in the industry. However, too much attention to science and technology
organizations detracts considerable resources and may distract the company from current
competition. In fact, most of the firms in the sample are over-engaged with science and
technology organizations, that is, they would increase their performance if they were less
engaged with this kind of partners.
6. Conclusions
This paper has focussed on the process of external knowledge search by companies, one
of the key phases shaping the broader phenomenon of inter-organizational learning.
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
PAGE 859
Specifically, it addresses the question of where to search for new external information. In
doing so, the study decomposed the search spectrum on different directions or patterns
according to the kind of sources involved and investigated how each search direction
distinctly impacts on overall firm performance. From the reported findings, important
implications for theory and practice are derived.
6.1 Theoretical implications
This study contributes to current literature in two main ways. First, it contributes to literature
on external knowledge search by identifying the different search directions followed by
firms in high-tech industries. Firms do not search in a vacuum (Sofka and Grimpe, 2010).
Previous literature has mainly distinguished between market knowledge, coming from
customers and competitors, and scientific knowledge, tied to universities and research
centres. Suppliers have not been clearly classified according to that distinction (Chen et al.,
2011; Khler et al., 2012). Moreover, other kinds of organizations, to which the firm can
connect through networks, as well as other information sources, have not been
systematically taken into account. Extending prior research, the present study provides a
comprehensive view of the potential search directions under managerial choice.
Second, the study contributes to literature on effects of external knowledge search in two
ways. On the one hand, it focusses on overall firm performance instead of on innovation
performance indicators. This way, it contributes to offset the excessive tendency of prior
studies to only focus on the benefits of external search (Huizingh, 2011; West and Bogers,
2014). Some scholars have highlighted that learning from external sources may entail
important costs and risks. In fact, the scarce empirical research that has investigated the
effect of openness towards external knowledge on firm final performance the only valid
approach for ascertaining whether the gains of external knowledge search overcome its
cost is inconclusive. It is at this point where this study makes its most relevant
contribution. The handful of empirical works addressing the openness-firm performance
relationship has relied on a single variable that captures the degree of openness towards
external knowledge. Based on the argument that different sources may entail quite different
benefits and also quite different costs and risks, this study extends this literature by
showing that different search directions differ drastically in terms of their contribution to final
performance. Thus, its findings point to the conclusion that answering the question of how
much external knowledge has to be searched heavily depends on where it is searched.
Some directions of inter-organizational learning may pose (and the findings presented
above show it) a cognitive limit for knowledge internalization that makes it more desirable,
in terms of firm performance, to take intermediate or even low levels in the openness
continuum.
6.2 Managerial implications
The purpose of the study has been to get a better understanding of the benefits and problems
that entail the different directions of external knowledge search, so trying to provide a useful
guidance for managers in high-technology industries regarding the search patterns that
deserve more attention and also to which extent. Thus, two main implications for managers of
high-technology firms can be derived from this empirical research. First, contrary to the
growing trend of increasing the degree of openness towards external knowledge in
Additional investments for acquiring market knowledge from

customers and competitors are highly recommended, as they
will directly increase rm performance.
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
companies, this study shows that being more open does not always mean better for firms.
Searching for external knowledge may be beneficial for improving firms knowledge and
internal processes, but it also entails important costs and risks that are usually neglected. Both
sides of the coin gains and pains vary substantially among different kinds of sources. Thus,
managers should thoroughly analyze the potential benefits but, especially the disadvantages
of each external source before making additional investments devoted to learn from it.
Second, the findings inform managers about the search directions their organizations
should follow, as well as the efforts they should devote in each search pattern. On a general
basis, companies should devote more attention to inter-organizational learning through
network building and social capital (Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010), rather than other kinds of
sources that cannot be managed from an inter-organizational learning perspective such as
general information sources or patents and databases. More precisely, additional
investments for acquiring market knowledge from customers and competitors are highly
recommended, as they will directly increase firm performance. Intensive search over this
kind of sources contributes to keep the firm up-to-date about technology advances and
emerging market trends. This seems especially true in high-tech industries in which
competitors continually develop new products and customers pull companies with new
requirements. Furthermore, due to their proximity to firms activities, deepening into these
sources is not so costly. In turn, inter-organizational learning from suppliers and science
and technology organizations is advisable, but only at a certain level. Over-engagement
with these external knowledge sources increases the costs and risks beyond its potential
benefits. Thus, managers should put an eye on these sources when designing their firms
inter-organizational networks, but not to invest heavily in fostering close relationships with
them, especially in the case of science and technology organizations.
6.3 Limitations and future research
This paper has some limitations that constitute avenues for future research. First,
conclusions can only be generalized to large- and medium-sized high-tech manufacturing
firms from developed countries. This calls for additional empirical research in different
contexts. It may occur that the configuration of search patterns vary among sectors (Chen
et al., 2011) and, more important, that the performance implications of the patterns could
be context dependent (Sofka and Grimpe, 2009).
Second, the study followed well-established methodological procedures (CIS, 2010; De Clercq
et al., 2013; OECD, 2005; Oerlemans et al., 2013) by relying on two different informants,
indicating the time span to which each block of questions was referred, and introducing
perceived lags among dependent and independent variables. These cautions largely alleviate
concerns on simultaneity and reverse causality, so redounding in a high confidence of the
reported findings. Despite this, the nature of the study remains cross-sectional. The only way
to completely avoid these concerns is by introducing real lags among variables, which makes
it advisable that future studies rely on panel or lagged data.
This study constitutes a first step to understand how different directions of external
knowledge search may affect performance at the firm level. The effect of the different types
of external sources on firm performance may be contingent to internal and external
variables. Consequently, the identification of potential moderators constitutes a very
interesting window for future research.
Finally, this empirical piece has considered the intensity in which firms acquire knowledge
from different partners and external sources. However, the specific organisational modes
they use to enter into relationship with them remained beyond the scope of the study.
Accordingly, an interesting avenue for future research would be to investigate how distinct
organizational modes (i.e. occasional collaborations, licensing agreements, or non-equity
alliances) contribute to acquire knowledge from concrete partners more efficiently.
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
PAGE 861
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the financial support from Spanish Ministries of Science and
Innovation and Economy and Competitiveness (Grants #ECO2009-12405 and
#ECO2012-38190), as well as from Programa Nacional para la Formacin del Profesorado
Universitario (FPU) of the Spanish Ministry of Education (Grant #AP2008-00420). Jorge
Cruz-Gonzlez gratefully acknowledges financial aid from Programa de Ayudas para
Estancias Breves del Programa de Formacin de Profesorado Universitario 2011 and the
hospitality of the Department of Innovation and Organizational Economics (Copenhagen
Business School). Finally, the authors wish to thank Joaqun Alegre, Christoph Grimpe, Keld
Laursen, Toke Reichstein and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions made on earlier versions of this manuscript. The usual disclaimers apply.
Notes
1. These sources are listed in the Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005) as important sources for the transfer of
external knowledge. Accordingly, they shaped the list of 16 knowledge sources considered in this
study (see subsection 3.2.2. Capturing the directions of external knowledge search).
2. Sistema de Anlisis de Balances Ibricos (Bureau van Dijk) is a database which includes financial
information of 1,250,000 Spanish and 400,000 Portuguese firms.
References
Ahuja, G. and Katila, R. (2004), Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 Nos 8/9, pp. 887-907.
Alguezaui, S. and Filieri, R. (2010), Investigating the role of social capital in innovation: sparse versus
dense network, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 891-909.
Amara, N. and Landry, R. (2005), Sources of information as determinants of novelty of innovation in
manufacturing firms: evidence from the 1999 statistics Canada Innovation Survey, Technovation,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 245-259.
Andersen, T.J. (2004), Integrating decentralized strategy making and strategic planning processes in
dynamic environments, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1271-1299.
Belderbos, R., Faems, D., Leten, B. and Van Looy, B. (2010), Technological activities and their impact
on the financial performance of firms: exploitation and exploration within and between firms, Journal
of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 869-882.
Bierly, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (1996), Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical
industry, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. S3, pp. 123-135.
Boehm, D.N. and Hogan, T. (2013), Science-to-business collaborations: a science-to-business
marketing perspective on scientific knowledge commercialization, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 564-579.
Cappelli, R., Czarnitzki, D. and Kraft, K. (2014), Sources of spillovers for imitation and innovation,
Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 110-115.
Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R. (2006), In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal
R&D and external knowledge acquisition, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 68-82.
Chen, J., Chen, Y. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011), The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of
external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms, Technovation, Vol. 31
No. 8, pp. 362-373.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2009), Investment in design and firm performance: the mediating role of
design management, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 424-440.
CIS (2010), The Community Innovation Survey 2010: The Harmonised Survey Questionnaire, European
Commission, Brussels.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, London.
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective of learning and
innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Danneels, E. (2008), Organizational antecedents of second-order competences, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 519-543.
De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N. and Dimov, D. (2013), Shedding new light on the relationship
between contextual ambidexterity and firm performance: an investigation of internal contingencies,
Technovation, Vol. 33 Nos 4/5, pp. 119-132.
De Luca, L.M. and Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007), Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional
collaboration: examining the different routes to product innovation performance, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 95-112.
Delgado-Verde, M., Navas-Lpez, J.E., Cruz-Conzlez, J. and Amores-Salvad, J. (2011), Radical
innovation from relations-based knowledge: empirical evidence in Spanish technology-intensive
firms, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 722-737.
Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. (1984), Measuring organizational performance in the absence of
objective measures: the case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 265-273.
Ebersberger, B. and Herstad, S.J. (2011), Product innovation and the complementarities of external
interfaces, European Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 117-135.
Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A. and Trib, J.A. (2009), Managing external knowledge flows: the moderating
role of absorptive capacity, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 96-105.
Faems, D., De Visser, M., Andries, P. and Van Looy, B. (2010), Technology alliance portfolios and
financial performance: value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 785-796.
Foss, N.J., Laursen, K. and Pedersen, T. (2011), Linking customer interaction and innovation: the
mediating role of new organizational practices, Organization Science, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 980-999.
Goerzen, A. and Beamish, P.W. (2005), The effect of alliance network diversity on multinational
enterprise performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 333-354.
Grant, R.M. (1996), Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as
knowledge integration, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 375-387.
Grimpe, C. and Kaiser, U. (2010), Balancing internal and external knowledge acquisition: the gains
and pains from R&D outsourcing, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1483-1509.
Grimpe, C. and Sofka, W. (2009), Search patterns and absorptive capacity: low- and high-technology
sectors in European countries, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 495-503.
Huizingh, E. (2011), Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives, Technovation, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 2-9.
Hung, K.P. and Chiang, Y.H. (2010), Open innovation proclivity, entrepreneurial orientation, and
perceived firm performance, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 52 Nos 3/4,
pp. 257-274.
Hung, K.P. and Chou, C. (2013), The impact of open innovation on firm performance: the moderating
effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence, Technovation, Vol. 33, pp. 368-380.
Katz, R. and Allen, T.J. (1982), Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the
performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups, R&D Management,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Kaufmann, A. and Tdtling, F. (2001), Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: the
importance of boundary-crossing between systems, Research Policy, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 791-804.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication
of technology, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-397.
Khler, C., Sofka, W. and Grimpe, C. (2012), Selective search, sectoral patterns, and the impact on
product innovation performance, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1344-1356.
Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J. and Neter, J. (2004), Applied Linear Regression Models, 4th ed.,
McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Columbus, OH.
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
PAGE 863
Laursen, K. (2012), Keep searching and youll find: what do we know about variety creation through
firms search activities for innovation? Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1181-1220.
Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006), Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation
performance among UK manufacturing firms, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 131-150.
Lavie, D. (2006), Capability reconfiguration: an analysis of incumbent responses to technological
change, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 153-174.
Leiponen, A. and Helfat, C.E. (2010), Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of
breath, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 224-236.
Leiponen, A. and Helfat, C.E. (2011), Location, decentralization, and knowledge sources for
innovation, Organization Science, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 641-658.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product
development, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. S1, pp. 111-125.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2009), Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of
organizational learning processes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 822-846.
Lichtenthaler, U., Hoegl, M. and Muethel, M. (2011), Is your company ready for open innovation?, MIT
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 44-48.
Lpez-Sez, P., Navas-Lpez, J.E., Martn-de-Castro, G. and Cruz-Gonzlez, J. (2010), External
knowledge acquisition processes in knowledge-intensive clusters, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 690-707.
Martnez-Caas, R., Sez-Martnez, F.J. and Ruiz-Palomino, P. (2012), Knowledge acquisitions
mediation of social capital-firm innovation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 61-76.
Mention, A.L. (2011), Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service
sector: which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 44-53.
Miller, D.J., Fern, M.J. and Cardinal, R.B. (2007), The use of knowledge for technological innovation
within diversified firms, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 308-326.
Mina, A., Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E. and Hughes, A. (2014), Open service innovation and the firms
search for external knowledge, Research Policy, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 853-866.
Narteh, B. (2008), Knowledge transfer in developed-developing country interfirm collaborations: a
conceptual framework, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 78-91.
Newbert, S.L. (2008), Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: a conceptual-level
empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29
No. 7, pp. 745-768.
Nieto, M.J. and Santamara, L. (2007), The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the
novelty of product innovation, Technovation, Vol. 27 Nos 6/7, pp. 367-377.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
OECD (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd ed., OECD
and Eurostat, Paris.
Oerlemans, L.A.G., Knoben, J. and Pretorius, M.W. (2013), Alliance portfolio diversity, radical and
incremental innovation: the moderating role of technology management, Technovation, Vol. 33 Nos 6/
7, pp. 234-246.
Phelps, C.C. (2010), A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on
firm exploratory innovation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 890-913.
Pla-Barber, J. and Alegre, J. (2007), Analysing the link between export intensity, innovation and firm
size in a science-based industry, International Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 75-93.
Powell, T.C. (1992), Organizational alignment as competitive advantage, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, p. 113134.
Rosenkopf, L. and Nerkar, A. (2001), Beyond local search: boundary spanning, exploration, and
impact in the optical disk industry, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 287-306.
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
Sidhu, J.S., Commandeur, H.R. and Volberda, H.W. (2007), The multifaceted nature of exploration and
exploitation: value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation, Organization Science, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 20-38.
Sisodiya, S.R., Johnson, J.L. and Grgoire, Y. (2013), Inbound open innovation for enhanced
performance: enablers and opportunities, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 5,
pp. 836-849.
Sofka, W. and Grimpe, C. (2010), Specialized search and innovation performance: evidence across
Europe, R&D Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 310-323.
Tether, B.S. (2002), Who co-operates for innovation, and why: an empirical analysis, Research Policy,
Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 947-967.
Todorova, G. and Durisin, B. (2007), Absorptive capacity: valuing a reconceptualization, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 774-786.
Tdtling, F., Lehner, P. and Kaufmann, A. (2009), Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds
of knowledge interactions?, Technovation, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 59-71.
Tsai, K.H. and Hsieh, M.H. (2009), How different types of partners influence innovative product sales:
does technological capacity matter?, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 12, pp. 1321-1328.
Tsai, K.H. and Wang, J.C. (2009), External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT
sectors: an analysis based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Survey, Research Policy,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 518-526.
Un, C.A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A. and Asakawa, K. (2010), R&D collaborations and product innovation,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 673-689.
Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T. and Zahra, S.A. (2009), Exploration, exploitation, and financial
performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 221-231.
Venkatraman, N. (1989), Strategic orientation of business enterprises: the construct, dimensionality,
and measurement, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 942-962.
von Hippel, E. (1988a), The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
von Hippel, E. (1988b), Economics of product development by users: the impact of sticky local
information, Management Science, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 629-644.
Voudouris, I., Lioukas, S., Iatrelli, M. and Caloghirou, Y. (2012), Effectiveness of technology
investment: impact of internal technological capability, networking and investments strategic
importance, Technovation, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 400-414.
Wang, C.H. and Hsu, L.C. (2014), Building exploration and exploitation in the high-tech industry: the
role of relationship learning, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 81, pp. 331-340.
West, J. and Bogers, M. (2014), Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on
open innovation, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 814-831.
Yu, S.H. (2013), Social capital, absorptive capability, and firm innovation, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Vol. 80 No. 7, pp. 1261-1270.
Zahra, S.A. and Bogner, W.C. (2000), Technology strategy and software new ventures performance:
exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 135-173.
Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002), Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and
extension, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-203.
Zeng, S.X., Xie, X.M. and Tam, C.M. (2010), Relationship between cooperation networks and
innovation performance of SMEs, Technovation, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 181-194.
About the authors

Jorge Cruz-Gonzlez is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Organization and
Management at CUNEF Business School (Spain). He is researcher at the Ikujiro Nonaka
Research Centre on Knowledge and Innovation (CUNEF Business School), and a member
of the Strategy, Knowledge and Innovation Research Group (ECI) at Complutense de
Madrid University. He has been a visiting scholar at Copenhagen Business School
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014
PAGE 865
(Denmark) during 2011 and Jinan University (China) in 2014. His research interests focus
on knowledge management, organizational learning and dynamic capabilities, with a
special emphasis on exploratory vs exploitative learning, management of external
knowledge flows and organizational practices associated to absorptive capacity. His work
has been published in journals such as Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Journal of Knowledge Management or Cuadernos de Economa y Direccin de la Empresa.
In 2011, he was recognized with the Highly Commended Paper Award for the article
External knowledge acquisition processes in knowledge-intensive clusters, published in
Journal of Knowledge Management. Jorge Cruz-Gonzlez is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: jorge.cruz@cunef.edu
Pedro Lpez-Sez is an Associate Professor in the Department of Business Administration
at Complutense de Madrid University (Spain). He is the principal researcher at the Ikujiro
Nonaka Reseach Centre on Knowledge and Innovation (CUNEF Business School), and the
member of the Strategy, Knowledge and Innovation Research Group (ECI) at Complutense
de Madrid University. He has been a visiting scholar at Harvard University (2004-2005). His
research interests focus on organizational learning, dynamic capabilities, strategy and
innovation, with a special emphasis on the identification of intra- and inter-organizational
learning processes and their role on firms technological innovation. His work has been
published in journals such as Technovation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of
Business Ethics, International Journal of Technology Management or Journal of Intellectual
Capital. In 2011, he was recognized with the Highly Commended Paper Award for the
article External knowledge acquisition processes in knowledge-intensive clusters,
published in Journal of Knowledge Management.
Jos E. Navas-Lpez is a Professor in the Department of Business Administration at
Complutense de Madrid University (Spain), where he is the Head of the Strategy,
Knowledge and Innovation Research Group (ECI). He also held the first Knowledge
Management Chair in Spain at I.U. Euroforum Escorial. His research interests focus on
intangible assets, knowledge management, strategy and innovation, with special emphasis
on intellectual capital dimensions and complexity of capabilities as antecedents of firms
technological innovation. He is the author and co-author of several books and papers
published in journals such as Technovation, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, International Journal of Technology Management or Journal of
Intellectual Capital. In 2011, he was recognized with the Highly Commended Paper Award
for the article External knowledge acquisition processes in knowledge-intensive clusters,
published in Journal of Knowledge Management.
Miriam Delgado-Verde is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Business
Administration at Complutense de Madrid University (Spain). She is researcher at the Ikujiro
Nonaka Reseach Centre on Knowledge and Innovation (CUNEF Business School) and a
member of the Strategy, Knowledge and Innovation Research Group (ECI) at Complutense
de Madrid University. She has been a visiting scholar at Manchester Institute of Innovation
Research (MIOIR) The University of Manchester during 2009, and the Centre for
Entrepreneurship University of Edinburgh Business School during 2010. Her research
interests focus on intangible assets, knowledge management and innovation, with a special
emphasis on the configuration of firms intellectual capital, interactions among its
dimensions, and their effects on technological innovation. Her work has been published in
journals such as Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Knowledge Management Research & Practice or
Journal of Intellectual Capital.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

Giudice 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Giudice 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Knowledge Management

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Directions of external knowledge search:

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

Jorge Cruz-Gonzlez, Pedro Lpez-Sez, Jos Emilio Navas-Lpez and

Received 17 June 2014

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

PAGE 848 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

Openness towards external knowledge may not only provide

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

Firms may rely on quite different external sources involving

PAGE 850 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

laboratories and R&D enterprises), experts and consultants, professional associations,

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

PAGE 852 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

PAGE 854 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

Table I Structure matrix and Cronbachs alphas

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

External knowledge source

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Table II Descriptive statistics, Pearsons correlations, and variance inflation factors

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

Notes: n 248; all correlations above 0.13 are significant at p 0.05

PAGE 856 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Figure 1 The effect of knowledge acquisition from science and technology

Figure 2 The effect of external knowledge acquisition from suppliers on firm

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

Knowledge acquisition from science and technology organizations

Knowledge acquisition from suppliers

1. science and technology organizations as government or public research centres,

PAGE 858 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

Contrary to the growing trend of increasing the degree of

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

Additional investments for acquiring market knowledge from

PAGE 860 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014

Downloaded by University of Manitoba Libraries At 22:47 16 February 2015 (PT)

VOL. 18 NO. 5 2014