IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v48y2023i1d10.1007_s10961-021-09905-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which neighbor is more conducive to innovation? The moderating effect of partners’ innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Jiuling Xiao

    (Nanjing Audit University)

  • Yuting Bao

    (Nanjing Audit University)

  • Jiankang Wang

    (Nanjing Audit University)

Abstract

Exploitative innovation and exploratory innovation have been a research focus in the field of innovation. This study proposes retrospective innovation based on this innovation classification by combining the spatial and temporal dimensions of knowledge in greater detail. Retrospective innovation focuses on discovering the new value of previous knowledge and reapplying it to innovation activities. Combining the embeddedness of organizational innovation in geographic networks, collaborative networks, and knowledge networks, the impacts of three attribute proximity (geographic proximity, technological proximity and social proximity) on the three types of innovation are explored. This study investigates these relationships using patent data from the nano-biopharmaceutical field. The findings suggest that geographic proximity positively influences exploitative innovation. Technological proximity promotes exploitative innovation but has a negative effect on retrospective and exploratory innovation. Social proximity has a positive effect on exploitative and exploratory innovation, but negatively affects retrospective innovation. In addition, the moderating effect of collaborators’ innovation on the above relationships is also considered. Exploitative innovation of collaborators positively moderates the relationship between geographic proximity and exploitative innovation. A high level of retrospective innovation of collaborators enhances the negative effect of technological proximity on retrospective innovation of the focal organization, and weakens the negative effect of social proximity on retrospective innovation of the focal organization. A high level of exploratory innovation of collaborators enhances the negative effect of technological proximity on exploratory innovation in the focal organization.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiuling Xiao & Yuting Bao & Jiankang Wang, 2023. "Which neighbor is more conducive to innovation? The moderating effect of partners’ innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 33-67, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:48:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10961-021-09905-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-021-09905-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-021-09905-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-021-09905-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guan, Jiancheng & Liu, Na, 2016. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 97-112.
    2. Khan, Zaheer & Lew, Yong Kyu & Marinova, Svetla, 2019. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in emerging economies: The role of realized absorptive capacity and learning intent," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 499-512.
    3. Crescenzi, Riccardo & Nathan, Max & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2016. "Do inventors talk to strangers? On proximity and collaborative knowledge creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 177-194.
    4. Daniel Prajogo & Christopher M. Mcdermott, 2014. "Antecedents of Service Innovation in SMEs: Comparing the Effects of External and Internal Factors," Journal of Small Business Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(3), pages 521-540, July.
    5. Wang, Chao-Hung & Hsu, Li-Chang, 2014. "Building exploration and exploitation in the high-tech industry: The role of relationship learning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 331-340.
    6. Enkel, Ellen & Heil, Sebastian & Hengstler, Monika & Wirth, Henning, 2017. "Exploratory and exploitative innovation: To what extent do the dimensions of individual level absorptive capacity contribute?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 60, pages 29-38.
    7. Chang, Yi-Ying & Hughes, Mathew, 2012. "Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17.
    8. Limaj, Everist & Bernroider, Edward W.N., 2019. "The roles of absorptive capacity and cultural balance for exploratory and exploitative innovation in SMEs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 137-153.
    9. Filippini, Roberto & Güttel, Wolfgang H. & Nosella, Anna, 2012. "Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge management initiatives," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 317-324.
    10. Jingbei Wang & Naiding Yang, 2019. "Dynamics of collaboration network community and exploratory innovation: the moderation of knowledge networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 1067-1084, November.
    11. Ward Ooms & Claudia Werker & Marjolein Caniëls, 2018. "Personal and social proximity empowering collaborations: the glue of knowledge networks," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(9), pages 833-840, October.
    12. Jannika Mattes, 2012. "Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases: Innovation between Spatial and Non-spatial Factors," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(8), pages 1085-1099, December.
    13. Victor Cui & Haibin Yang & Ilan Vertinsky, 2018. "Attacking your partners: Strategic alliances and competition between partners in product markets," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(12), pages 3116-3139, December.
    14. Unai Arzubiaga & Amaia Maseda & Txomin Iturralde, 2019. "Exploratory and exploitative innovation in family businesses: the moderating role of the family firm image and family involvement in top management," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-31, February.
    15. Mario Coccia, 2008. "Spatial mobility of knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity: analysis and measurement of the impact within the geoeconomic space," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 105-122, February.
    16. Weterings, Anet & Boschma, Ron, 2009. "Does spatial proximity to customers matter for innovative performance?: Evidence from the Dutch software sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 746-755, June.
    17. Edward J. Malecki, 2010. "Everywhere? The Geography Of Knowledge," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 493-513, February.
    18. Luyun Xu & Jian Li & Xin Zhou, 2019. "Exploring new knowledge through research collaboration: the moderation of the global and local cohesion of knowledge networks," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 822-849, June.
    19. Eike W. Schamp & Bernd Rentmeister & Vivien Lo, 2004. "Dimensions of proximity in knowledge-based networks: The cases of investment banking and automobile design," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(5), pages 607-624, July.
    20. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2020. "The role of geographical proximity in knowledge diffusion, measured by citations to scientific literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    21. Steinmo, Marianne & Rasmussen, Einar, 2016. "How firms collaborate with public research organizations: The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 1250-1259.
    22. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    23. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Ron Boschma & Koen Frenken, 2015. "Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(6), pages 907-920, June.
    24. Ho, Hillbun & Osiyevskyy, Oleksiy & Agarwal, James & Reza, Sadat, 2020. "Does ambidexterity in marketing pay off? The role of absorptive capacity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 65-79.
    25. Melissa A. Schilling & Corey C. Phelps, 2007. "Interfirm Collaboration Networks: The Impact of Large-Scale Network Structure on Firm Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1113-1126, July.
    26. Koryak, Oksana & Lockett, Andy & Hayton, James & Nicolaou, Nicos & Mole, Kevin, 2018. "Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 413-427.
    27. Guiyang Zhang & Chaoying Tang, 2018. "How R&D partner diversity influences innovation performance: an empirical study in the nano-biopharmaceutical field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1487-1512, September.
    28. Benner, Mary & Waldfogel, Joel, 2008. "Close to you? Bias and precision in patent-based measures of technological proximity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1556-1567, October.
    29. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    30. Guan, Jian Cheng & Yan, Yan, 2016. "Technological proximity and recombinative innovation in the alternative energy field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1460-1473.
    31. David B. Audretsch & Max Keilbach, 2007. "The Theory of Knowledge Spillover Entrepreneurship," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(7), pages 1242-1254, November.
    32. Jaffe, Adam B, 1986. "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 984-1001, December.
    33. Bai, Xuan & Wang, Qingtao & Sheng, Shibin & Li, Julie Juan, 2021. "Cross-level interpersonal ties and IJV innovation: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 618-630.
    34. Tommaso Pucci & Mara Brumana & Tommaso Minola & Lorenzo Zanni, 2020. "Social capital and innovation in a life science cluster: the role of proximity and family involvement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 205-227, February.
    35. Zhang, Zhengang & Luo, Taiye, 2020. "Network capital, exploitative and exploratory innovations——from the perspective of network dynamics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    36. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    37. Meehee Cho & Mark A. Bonn & Su Jin Han, 2020. "Innovation ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for startup and established restaurants and impacts upon performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 340-362, April.
    38. Marrocu, Emanuela & Paci, Raffaele & Usai, Stefano, 2013. "Proximity, networking and knowledge production in Europe: What lessons for innovation policy?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1484-1498.
    39. Pierre-Alexandre Balland, 2012. "Proximity and the Evolution of Collaboration Networks: Evidence from Research and Development Projects within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Industry," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(6), pages 741-756, September.
    40. Raji Srinivasan & Pamela Haunschild & Rajdeep Grewal, 2007. "Vicarious Learning in New Product Introductions in the Early Years of a Converging Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 16-28, January.
    41. Jeongho Choi & Farok J Contractor, 2016. "Choosing an appropriate alliance governance mode: The role of institutional, cultural and geographical distance in international research & development (R&D) collaborations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 47(2), pages 210-232, February.
    42. Santamaría, Luis & Nieto, María Jesús & Rodríguez, Alicia, 2021. "Failed and successful innovations: The role of geographic proximity and international diversity of partners in technological collaboration," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    43. David L. Rigby, 2015. "Technological Relatedness and Knowledge Space: Entry and Exit of US Cities from Patent Classes," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(11), pages 1922-1937, November.
    44. Hautala, Johanna & Jauhiainen, Jussi S., 2014. "Spatio-temporal processes of knowledge creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 655-668.
    45. Andre Torre & Alain Rallet, 2005. "Proximity and Localization," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 47-59.
    46. Tom Broekel & Ron Boschma, 2012. "Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 409-433, March.
    47. Villani, Elisa & Rasmussen, Einar & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2017. "How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-102.
    48. Atul Nerkar, 2003. "Old Is Gold? The Value of Temporal Exploration in the Creation of New Knowledge," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(2), pages 211-229, February.
    49. Cui, Victor & Ding, Waverly W. & Yanadori, Yoshio, 2019. "Exploration versus exploitation in technology firms: The role of compensation structure for R&D workforce," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1534-1549.
    50. Yan, Yan & Guan, JianCheng, 2018. "Social capital, exploitative and exploratory innovations: The mediating roles of ego-network dynamics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 244-258.
    51. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    52. Xie, Xuemei & Wang, Hongwei, 2021. "How to bridge the gap between innovation niches and exploratory and exploitative innovations in open innovation ecosystems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 299-311.
    53. Liang, Xinning & Liu, Anita M.M., 2018. "The evolution of government sponsored collaboration network and its impact on innovation: A bibliometric analysis in the Chinese solar PV sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1295-1308.
    54. Demetris Vrontis & Alkis Thrassou & Gabriele Santoro & Armando Papa, 2017. "Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 374-388, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rune Dahl Fitjar & Franz Huber & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2016. "Not too close, not too far: testing the Goldilocks principle of ‘optimal’ distance in innovation networks," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(6), pages 465-487, August.
    2. Yawen Qin & Xiaozhen Qin & Haohui Chen & Xun Li & Wei Lang, 2021. "Measuring cognitive proximity using semantic analysis: A case study of China's ICT industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6059-6084, July.
    3. Delorme, Donatienne, 2023. "The role of proximity in the design of innovation intermediaries' business models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    4. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Ron Boschma & Koen Frenken, 2020. "Proximity, Innovation and Networks: A Concise Review and Some Next Steps," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2019, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Mar 2020.
    5. Jiang, Zihao & Shi, Jiarong, 2023. "Government intervention and technological innovation in the wind power industry in China: The role of industrial environmental turbulence," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 344(C).
    6. Christian Omobhude & Shih-Hsin Chen, 2019. "The Roles and Measurements of Proximity in Sustained Technology Development: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-30, January.
    7. Villani, Elisa & Rasmussen, Einar & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2017. "How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-102.
    8. Maria Tsouri, 2022. "Knowledge networks and strong tie creation: the role of relative network position," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 95-114, January.
    9. Min Guo & Naiding Yang & Jingbei Wang & Yanlu Zhang, 2021. "Multi-dimensional proximity and network stability: the moderating role of network cohesion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3471-3499, April.
    10. Xie, Xuemei & Wang, Hongwei, 2021. "How to bridge the gap between innovation niches and exploratory and exploitative innovations in open innovation ecosystems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 299-311.
    11. Jiang, Zihao & Liu, Zhiying, 2022. "Policies and exploitative and exploratory innovations of the wind power industry in China: The role of technological path dependence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    12. Ba, Zhichao & Mao, Jin & Ma, Yaxue & Liang, Zhentao, 2021. "Exploring the effect of city-level collaboration and knowledge networks on innovation: Evidence from energy conservation field," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    13. Hugo Ernesto Martínez Ardila & Julián Eduardo Mora Moreno & Jaime Alberto Camacho Pico, 2020. "Networks of collaborative alliances: the second order interfirm technological distance and innovation performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1255-1282, August.
    14. Audretsch, David Bruce & Belitski, Maksim & Guerrero, Maribel, 2022. "The dynamic contribution of innovation ecosystems to schumpeterian firms: A multi-level analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 975-986.
    15. Guan, Jian Cheng & Yan, Yan, 2016. "Technological proximity and recombinative innovation in the alternative energy field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1460-1473.
    16. Guiyang Zhang, 2021. "Employee co-invention network dynamics and firm exploratory innovation: the moderation of employee co-invention network centralization and knowledge-employee network equilibrium," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7811-7836, September.
    17. Ferretti, Marco & Guerini, Massimiliano & Panetti, Eva & Parmentola, Adele, 2022. "The partner next door? The effect of micro-geographical proximity on intra-cluster inter-organizational relationships," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    18. Teis Hansen, 2014. "Juggling with Proximity and Distance: Collaborative Innovation Projects in the Danish Cleantech Industry," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 90(4), pages 375-402, October.
    19. Ana Fernández & Esther Ferrándiz & M. Dolores León, 2021. "Are organizational and economic proximity driving factors of scientific collaboration? Evidence from Spanish universities, 2001–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 579-602, January.
    20. Brennecke, Julia & Rank, Olaf, 2017. "The firm’s knowledge network and the transfer of advice among corporate inventors—A multilevel network study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 768-783.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Exploitative innovation; Retrospective innovation; Exploratory innovation; Multiple networks; Attribute proximity; Partners’ innovation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:48:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10961-021-09905-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.