FLEXING CAPABILITIES: INNOVATION AMBIDEXTERITY AND INNOVATION INTERMEDIARIES - PowerPoint Presentation

1. FLEXING CAPABILITIES: INNOVATION AMBIDEXTERITY AND INNOVATION INTERMEDIARIESMuthu de Silva ; Zaheer Khan ; Jeremy Howells@Muthu_De_Silva

2. Introduction Innovation ambidexterity – Simultaneous pursuit of exploratory and exploitative innovations – essential in a dynamic and competitive world (Benner and Tushman, 2002; Lavie et al., 2010)How to achieve ambidexterity through the use of external knowledge (Zobel 2017; Enkel et al., 2017)This is especially the case for innovation intermediaries, as such organizations typically operate in highly innovative and open task environments fostering collaboration between innovation ecosystem actors (del Águila-Obra et al., 2007; Lopez and Vanhaverbeke, 2009)Innovation intermediaries, to ensure their long-term survival and growth, rely on external knowledge to augment their own in-house innovation expertise (Howells, 2006; Sieg et al., 2010)However, surprisingly, innovation intermediaries appear to have little understanding of how this is achievedPaper examines how this type of innovation intermediaries exploit relational and internal capabilities, blending both in-house and external knowledge to achieve ambidexterity

3. Hypotheses development Intermediaries play at least two major roles in collaborative projects (Howells, 2006, 716-18): Network roleKnowledge roleBuilding of past research that has investigated the effect of channels of interactions on organizational ambidexterity (Ambos et al 2008; Sengupta and Ray 2017), it could be argued that these distinct roles may have differential impacts on in-house innovation. Network role  a knowledge facilitation role, low trust building opportunities to acquire knowledge predominantly to improve existing knowledge bases, ‘exploitative innovation’H1: The network role of innovation intermediaries is more positively associated with the pursuit of exploitative innovation rather than with exploratory innovationKnowledge role  deeper and close knowledge based interactions, direct access to external knowledge, mutual trust  the creation and transfer of new knowledge of value to ‘exploratory innovation’H2: The knowledge role of innovation intermediaries is more positively associated with the pursuit of exploratory innovation rather than with exploitative innovation

4. Hypotheses development Organizations need to have certain level of capabilities in order to benefit from external knowledge and recombine the knowledge internally for the pursuit of exploitative and exploratory innovation (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Zahra and George, 2002; Dyer and Singh, 1998). Relational capabilities - mechanisms that promote relationship building with external partiesInternal capabilities - mechanisms that promote the use of the strengths of internal employees and other in-house resources(Paulraj et al., 2008; Dyer and Singh, 1998; Arranz and de Arroyabe, 2012) Relational capabilities  intermediaries to transfer external knowledge to the firm boundary (Foss et al., 2013; Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2012). Internal capabilities  transforming external knowledge to firm innovation by integrating with the internal knowledge (Walker et al., 2013)H3: Relational capabilities positively mediate the relationship between the roles of innovation intermediaries and their internal capabilitiesH4: Internal capabilities positively mediate the relationship between relational capabilities and in-house innovation of innovation intermediaries

5. Conceptual framework Network Role Knowledge Role Exploitative Innovation Exploratory Innovation Relational Capability Practice Internal Capability Practice H1H2H3H4

6. Methodology Empirical base - Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs) operating in Europe. RTOs - 122A sequential mixed method approach - an initial qualitative data gathering phase, an online survey, an in-depth interview phase and a validation eventInitial interviews – 12 - construction validity - (Edmondson and McManus, 2007; Autio et al., 2013)Online survey – 48.3%- response rate In-depth interviews – 20 representatives of online survey - internal validity (Downward and Mearman, 2007). Validation event

7. Methodology Variable construct Measure Components Uni-dimensiontionality Internal consistency DEPENDENT VARIABLE: InnovationExploratory Innovation (Exploratory_ Innovation)The extent to which intermediaries generate each type of innovation during EU projects (Likert scale of 1- Never, 2- Rarely, 3- Sometimes, 4- Often, 5- Always) 1. Developed new equipment and/or technologies (EI_Eqip_Tech)2. Developed new products and/or services (EI_Product_Service) Factor loading- .876.876Eigenvalues 1.533, 76.671% Cronbach's Alpha 0.696 AVE 0.767CR 0.868Exploitative Innovation (Exploitative_Innovation)The extent to which intermediaries generate each type of innovation during EU projects (Likert scale of 1- Never, 2- Rarely, 3- Sometimes, 4- Often, 5- Always)1. Improve existing knowledge (EXP_New_Knowledge)2. Improve research skills (EXP_Research_Capability)3. Improve managerial skills (EXP_Management_Capability)4. Improve research streams (EXP_Research_St)Factor loading- .763.698.689.685 Eigenvalues 2.012, 50.309%Cronbach's Alpha 0.670AVE 0.503CR 0.802

8. Methodology MEDIATOR VARIABLES – Relational and internal capabilities Internal capabilities (Internal_Capability)Extent to which intermediaries adopt the following during EU project engagement (Likert scale of 1- Never, 2- Rarely, 3- Sometimes, 4- Often, 5- Always) Capitalise on the capabilities of experienced staff when engaging in EU Framework programmes (IC_Capitalise_Staff)Make an effort to retain those employees with successful EU experience (IC_Retain_Employees)Exchange staff between organizations / universities / industry to develop internal capabilities (i.e. placements) (IC_Exchange_Staff)Have a dedicated team working on EU engagements (IC_Team_EU_Engagements) Factor loading- .828.823.797.677 Eigenvalues 2.455, 61.379% Cronbach's Alpha 0.768AVE 0.614CR 0.864Relational capabilities (Relational_Capability)Extent to which intermediaries adopt the following during EU project engagement (Likert scale of 1- Never, 2- Rarely, 3- Sometimes, 4- Often, 5- Always) Develop relationships with key business players in the market (RC_Relationships_Key_Bus_Players)Develop relationships with local/national government (RC_Relatiosnhips_Govt)Develop relationships with universities (RC_Relationships_Universities)Develop relationships with European Commission (RC_Relationships_EC)Factor loading- .825.807.586.523 Eigenvalues 1.949, 48.732%  Cronbach's Alpha 0.650AVE 0.487CR 0.786Variable construct Measure Components Uni-dimensiontionality Internal consistency

9. Findings

10. Findings Network Role Knowledge Role Exploitative InnovationExploratory Innovation Relational Capability Internal Capability .155* .286* .540*** .248*** .230** .460** .380** .124+ .230+ .212+ .114* 

11. Discussion and conclusions Knowledge role  exploratory innovation Bridging two literature domains on the knowledge role of innovation intermediaries (Gassmann et al., 2011; Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008) and the conditions conducive for exploratory innovation (Colombo et al., 2011; Akbar and Tzokas 2013; Atuahene-Gima, 2003; McFadyen and Cannella, 2004), makes an original contribution by unveiling how knowledge-based contributions to a collaborative project pave the path for exploratory innovation. Network role  exploitative innovation Previous research on network suggests that intermediaries can gain diverse knowledge and resources which are vital to improve their performance (Burt, 2004; Foster et al., 2011; Lingo and O’Mahony, 2010) but not its link with exploitative innovation

12. Discussion and conclusions Capabilities mediate the ‘network role and exploitative innovation’ but not the ‘knowledge role and exploratory innovation’ . Nonetheless, the use of capabilities would still accelerate the transfer of external knowledge into exploratory innovation. Previous studies (Jansen et al., 2006; Ozer and Zhang 2015; Song and Thieme 2009; Subramaniam and Youndt 2005; Obal 2015; Cuevas-Rodríguez et al., 2014) only discussed separate effects of these capabilities on types of innovation. However, we discuss how these capabilities together foster ambidexterity.

13. Practical and Policy implications Guidance on how to use knowledge and network roles of innovation intermediaries for the generation of exploratory and exploitative innovationSignificance of developing relational and internal capabilities – looking at differential effects Motivate employees to develop and strategically use these capabilities to achieve innovation ambidexterity

14. Thank you !!!