Introduction

Since the publication of Cohen & Levinthal's seminal article (1990), the concept of absorptive capacity has been increasingly drawn on by researchers to explain a number of organizational phenomena. The concept has been mainly studied from a theoretical perspective and has not been operationalized in ways that would allow for a full understanding of the four dimensions identified by Zahra & George (2002): acquisition, assimilation, transformation and exploitation.

The research carried out by our team was exploratory in nature. Owing to the relatively small number of companies studied, the information collected needed to be meaningful, with close attention being paid to the consistency and complementarity of sources. The case study approach was used because it allowed for the use of different contexts (Hlady Rispal, 2000). The companies selected are all in the same industry sector (software production and application) and have been identified as innovative businesses – all of them having received funding support from OSEO, the French National Innovation Agency, which is a publicly owned organization reporting to both the Ministry for Economy, Finance and Industry and the Ministry for Higher Education and Research.

In the first part of the article, the concept of absorptive capacity is framed in terms of dynamic capability and a review of the relevant literature is proposed. In the second part, the concept of dynamic capability is operationalized and is followed by an analysis of the possible linkage between business strategies adopted by the companies in the sample and their particular strategic capacities.

The postulate on which the dynamic capability approach is based is that the internal potential of a company is a determining factor in the competitive advantages it can gain by cultivating its capacity to deal with changes in its environment.

The concept of dynamic capability

Teece et al. (1997) define dynamic capability in terms of the ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competencies to a changing environment. These researchers see dynamic capabilities as being capacities that are closely tied in with the organizational processes and resources of companies.

Eisenhardt & Martin (2000) adopt a similar approach to Teece et al. (1997), while focussing not on abilities or competencies but rather on organizational or strategic processes and routines that allow a firm's resources to be reconfigured in response to changing market realities. Their analysis puts the accent on the intrinsic characteristics of processes that provide the basis for dynamic capabilities, processes that support the development of or access to new knowledge, or facilitate new product development. For Eisenhardt & Martin (2000), dynamic capability corresponds to the existence of identifiable and specific routines that are fundamental to activities such as knowledge creation and acquisition, or the capacity to develop strategic alliances or partnerships.

In their later study of dynamic capability, Zollo & Winter (2002) extend the operationalization of the concept by introducing the construct of ‘methods’. For them, a dynamic capability is a learned and stable pattern of collective activity through which the organization systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness.

These different definitions of dynamic capability show that it can be seen either as organizational or systemic (system-related) skills whose role is to create, build up or reconfigure the resources of a system so as to better address changes in its environment. Dynamic capabilities can draw on various clearly identifiable processes, activities or methods that address specific needs that could, for example, be met by the development of new knowledge or, conversely, by discontinuing certain practices that have essentially become irrelevant. For Zollo and Winter (2002), these dynamic capabilities are the result of an organizational learning process, one of the key elements in the capacities-based transfer model. We believe it should be possible to apply the knowledge learned from the study of dynamic capability to knowledge transfer.

According to Parent et al. (2007), every capacity in a transfer system is built on processes, activities or methods, and this is equally true for dynamic capability. When looked at from this perspective, dynamic capability can be seen as stemming from or being an integral part of certain internal processes specific to a system – and can be associated with one or more capacities.

This premise has led us to characterize the dynamic capability relating to learning as being the absorptive capacity, as Zahra & George (2002) do when they define absorptive capacity as being a dynamic capability that influences and sustains the competitive advantage of a company.

From dynamic capability to absorptive capacity

Absorptive capacity can also be qualified as ‘the capacity to recognize the value of new external information, assimilate it and apply it to commercial ends’ (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990, p. 128). This is an allusion to the range of routines and organizational processes through which a business or a system acquires, assimilates, transforms and exploits knowledge in order to produce a dynamic organizational capability (Zahra & George, 2002). These researchers validate the idea that the concept is multi-dimensional and in fact comprises a range of dimensions and abilities. Lane & Lubatkin (1998) draw on the same bases as Cohen & Levinthal (1990) for their study of what is required for firms to learn from other firms. Van Den Bosch et al. (2005) also propose a definition of absorptive capacity based on three crucial components: the capacity to recognize the value of external knowledge, the capacity to assimilate it and the capacity to apply it for commercial purposes. This is what Kim qualifies as the capacity of organizations to learn and to solve problems (Kim, 1998). A number of different studies have demonstrated the connection between absorptive capacity and organizational performance (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Levinson & Asahi, 1995; Mowery & Oxley, 1995; Mukherjee et al., 2000). Furthermore, absorptive capacity is also recognized as being one of the fundamentals of technical learning inside organizations (Kedia & Bhagat, 1988; Veuglers & Cassiman, 1999).

For an organization to increase its absorptive capacity, it needs to boost its ability to transform and implement external knowledge within the company so as to enhance its core competencies (Daghfous, 2004). An organization that wants to make effective use of the sources that can boost its absorptive capacity needs to focus strongly on the communications interface between the external environment, the company as a whole and its constituent units (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Grant, 1991; Levinson & Asahi, 1995). Furthermore, organizational culture is considered to be one of the determinants of the effectiveness of organizational transfer (Kedia & Bhagat, 1988); organizational cultures can thus either facilitate learning and change in a system or, on the contrary, act as counterweights that impede it (Levinson & Asahi, 1995). In fact, when a primarily resource-based view is adopted, some authors consider that the interactions and connections that firms build with outside organizations can strengthen their absorptive capacity and improve the effectiveness of the transfer process (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989; Hamel, 1991; Levinson & Asahi, 1995).

There does exist a certain degree of consensus about absorptive capacity between researchers in different studies. Earlier research studies generally agree on the definition of the concept and on the description of its role and its results (Volberda et al., 2010). Absorptive capacity is a fundamental concept in the study of organizational learning, from both theoretical and practical standpoints.

The dimensions of an organization's absorptive capacity

Zahra & George (2002) identified four dimensions of absorptive capacity: acquisition, assimilation, transformation and exploitation. They then proposed a new way of framing the concept by distinguishing between potential (acquisition and assimilation of knowledge) and achieved (transformation and exploitation) absorptive capacity.

Acquisition is defined as being the capacity to recognize, understand the importance of, and acquire the external knowledge needed for the operations of an organization (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998; Zahra & George, 2002). Hamel (1991) sees the acquisition of new, specialized knowledge as a motivator for interorganizational collaboration. Welsch et al. (2001) describe acquisition as being a generator of knowledge for an organization. Acquisition can occur as a result of investment in R&D or through prior knowledge.

Assimilation refers to a firm's capacity to integrate external knowledge using routines and processes that allow it to understand, analyse, process and interpret information obtained from external sources (Zahra & George, 2002). They suggest that the number of publications where a firm makes reference to research carried out by others could be used to determine its success in this area.

Transformation is a firm's capability to develop and refine the routines that facilitate combining existing knowledge and the newly acquired and assimilated knowledge. This goal can be achieved by the addition or suppression of knowledge, or the reinterpretation of existing knowledge. It requires two fundamental elements: internalization and conversion. Zahra & George (2002) suggest that an indicator of a firm's degree of success in transformation could be the number of ideas or research projects centred on new products.

Exploitation is a firm's capacity to competitively use new external knowledge to achieve its organizational goals (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998). Routines create an environment that allows firms to refine, extend and leverage existing competencies, or develop new ones by incorporating acquired and transformed knowledge into their operations (Zahra & George, 2002). These researchers propose using the number of patents obtained or new products announced as an indicator of a firm's degree of success in this area.

Factors affecting absorptive capacity

Absorptive capacity is influenced by both internal and external factors (Daghfous, 2004). Internal factors include the prior knowledge base, individual absorptive capacity, the level of education and academic qualifications of employees, the diversity of their backgrounds, the particular role played by gatekeepers, organizational structures, levels of cross-functional communication, organizational culture, company size, organizational inertia, investment in R&D, and human resource management. External factors are a combination of the external knowledge environment and the company's position within the relevant knowledge networks.

Lin et al. (2002) find that firms cannot successfully integrate and apply external knowledge unless they possess a high level of absorptive capacity. The authors studied the critical factors needed for absorptive capacity in situations in which transfers occur (in technology transfer, for example) and found convincing associations between absorptive capacity and factors such as diffusion channels for external technology, organizational interaction mechanisms and R&D resources.

In addition to the correlation made between absorptive capacity and R&D, the literature now available extends the concept to include, among other things, employee skills and motivation (Minbaeva & Michailova, 2004), prior knowledge (Lane et al., 2001), relevance of the knowledge, similarities between organizational structures, and shared research communities (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998).

Exploratory learning is an essential aspect of any organization's capacity to create variety and adapt (McGrath, 2001). Van Den Bosch et al. (1999) identify three characteristics in the absorption of knowledge: its efficiency, scope and degree of flexibility (p. 552). Efficiency in the absorption of knowledge refers to how firms identify, assimilate and exploit knowledge from a cost and economies of scale perspective, and scope refers to the breadth of component knowledge a firm draws upon. Flexibility refers to the extent to which a firm can access additional, and reconfigure existing, component knowledge. Van Den Bosch et al. (1999, p. 552) argue that the characteristics of flexibility and scope in the absorption of knowledge can be seen to be strongly associated with organizational knowledge structures that are exploratory in nature (March, 1991), whereas efficiency is more closely linked to adaptations leading to exploitation.

Tsai (2001) develops more of a network perspective and contends that organizational units can produce more innovations and enjoy better performance if they occupy central network positions; this enables them to access new knowledge developed by other organizations, although they remain fundamentally dependent on their own absorptive capacity and ability to successfully replicate the new knowledge.

Following our review of the literature, we developed, and present in Table 1, a summary overview of the different characteristics of absorptive capacity.

Table 1 Breakdown of dimensions of absorptive capacity, from a review of the literature
Full size table

Many different authors have written about absorptive capacity, although few have tried to operationalize the concept (Chauvet, 2003). At the same time, the four characteristics identified by Zahra & George (2002) open up some interesting prospects.

The research carried out by Zahra & George (2002) drew attention to four intrinsic characteristics of absorptive capacity: acquisition, assimilation, transformation and exploitation. In reference to these characteristics, and drawing on our review of the literature, we have grouped together in Table 2 the variables that can be associated with each characteristic.

Table 2 Dimensions of absorptive capacity, with associated variables
Full size table

Given that, as seen from the angle of the resource-based theory (Wernerfelt, 1984), information, information sources, competencies, experiences and management processes are generators of competitive and performance advantages, our premise would be that the greater a company's absorptive capacity for information, the longer the competitive advantages it develops will last. Moreover, Lewin et al. (2004) have shown that innovative companies have a far more highly developed and distinctly superior capacity for learning than firms that are simply ‘imitators’. These researchers also emphasize the strong connection between a firm's capacity for innovation and its absorptive capacity.

The empirical study

Our theoretical study enabled us to operationalize the concept of absorptive capacity. The goal of our research – the first findings from which constitute the basis for this current exploratory study – is ultimately that of developing an instrument for measuring absorptive capacity in companies. With this goal in mind, our exploratory study explores the links, where they exist, between companies’ absorptive capacity and their business strategy and proposes an initial operational grid for measuring absorptive capacity (Appendices A and B). The grid was supplemented by a complementary tool in the form of an interview focusing more closely on the strategic dimensions of business management.

Methodology

The opportunity for the authors to conduct research in partnership with France Télécom on the management of innovative projects provided them access to a case base containing 110 relatively small technological enterprises. This opportunity developed our interest in innovative organizations in the software application sector in France.

Over the past 30 years the software application industry, along with the software services industry, has positioned itself among the leading industrial forces throughout much of the world.

This sector represents a number of particular characteristics:

  1. 1)

    A relatively high degree of environmental uncertainty (Shan et al., 1994).

  2. 2)

    An access to hard-to-codify tacit knowledge through, among other things, strategy, technology and operations necessary for their success (Liebeskind et al., 1996).

  3. 3)

    A high rate of innovation. The commercialization of emergent technologies is characterized by fierce competition for innovative products and services.

  4. 4)

    Organizations with access to multiple sources of financing, including internal and external, such as stock options and venture capital.

  5. 5)

    A growing number of organizations managed by scientists (Fisher, 1996): the manager is at once manager and researcher.

Table 3 shows the profile used to identify our research sites.

Table 3 Primary parameters of sampling used
Full size table

The total case inventory available to the researchers contained 110 organizations on which to base the feasibility of our study.

illustration

figure a

Open interviews were our choice of structure for carrying out the study. To more easily distinguish between the different assumptions explored on the basis of this approach, each interview was ‘classified’, an expression we prefer to the term ‘coded’, even though our approach comes close to the open coding used by Glaser & Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) or the techniques of categorization and qualification proposed by Huberman & Miles (1991). Our goal was to enable the people being interviewed to express their views on the structural themes raised in the initial questions, and that emerged in the course of the interviews. The structural dimensions identified were: acquisition, assimilation, transformation and exploitation. For each of these characteristics, we pinpointed key associated variables identified in our review of the literature as being compelling indicators (number of patents, routinization, etc.).

Interview data were analysed using a thematic content analysis method (L’Écuyer, 1987). The important units of analysis were not necessarily specific words or phrases but rather units of meaning: they could be words, concepts, events, or sequences of events, together with the argumentation structure relating to them. The groupings adopted were fundamentally a reflection of the researchers’ desire for optimum latitude in conducting process and content analyses of the phenomena. They also felt it important to retain and remain sensitive to the semantic patterns of significance to the people involved (Pharo, 1997, p. 133) and to respect the insights conveyed both by the meaning of the everyday words people used and by the images conjured up in their argumentation. Structures of this kind are clearly more reliable when applied by researchers who, having participated in interviews, are well-placed to ‘interpret’ the meaning of specific remarks because they can take the climate of those interviews into account. Researchers from the team were responsible for the application of the structures used (agreement as to the meaning of words or phrases employed and comments made, or recognition of the aptness of the choice of a category, etc.). In all, approximately 30 h of interviews were conducted with ten company CEOs; each interview took place in two separate sessions, 2–4 weeks apart.

The theoretical study we carried out led to our operationalization of the concept of absorptive capacity (Appendix B). The grid so developed was then applied in the interviews with the ten company CEOs. To supplement the interview grid, while also extending and validating our own observations, each CEO was also asked to talk about the particular strategies he employed. Our initial exploratory sample of companies was composed of small and medium-sized businesses with between 25 and 160 employees.

Main results

Eight of the ten firms stated that they had adopted a mixed management strategy for R&D, both internally and externally, through alliances and partnerships, as well as collaboration with university-based laboratories. A CEO from one of these eight firms declared, ‘… There's no way we could bring together all the know-how we need inside the company, so this is a good way to garner skills. I encourage my engineers to get involved in at least one joint research program. … At the conclusion of each of them, reports are produced, then discussed, and the discussions at times lead to changes, sometimes even ruthless changes, in the way we do things’ (CEO 4).

The initial interviews with these company officers revealed that decisions about external cooperation projects are the result of deliberate management choices, possibly linked to the personalities of the CEOs concerned. What is striking is that the companies that deliberately pursue strategies of openness to external interactions are also those with the highest growth rates in the sample (in sales figures and in the number of employees).

These businesses all display strong adaptive capacities, and the conflict management strategies they use within their partnerships stem from previous experience: ‘Petty conflicts are easy to avoid, usually through discussion of the issues involved, and even when a conflict is more serious, we invariably find ways to settle our differences’ (CEO 7); ‘If there is agreement on the desired outcomes, we can work with any partner; sure, everyone has their own way of doing things, but there are always common threads for working successfully together…’.

The issue of trust came up frequently during the interviews. Six of the eight CEOs referred to it with no prompting from the interviewers, when talking about experiences with their external partners and their own people. Each of them saw trust as being fundamental to their relationships and felt that shared trust between those involved was indispensable: ‘… If we couldn’t trust the people we are working with, we would be stuck in a permanent state of renegotiation of expectations and obligations. Trust is the glue that binds agreements together and helps avoid conflicts…’ (CEO 9). In their internal relations, all the CEOs trusted the people working for them; they felt this was both a motivating factor for their employees and a situation that allowed them intellectual freedom.

The CEOs we interviewed all credited specific employees, whom they were able to identify by name, as having contributed significantly to either the dissemination of external knowledge or its assimilation in one area or another: ‘… Marc, the director of our research unit, keeps a close watching brief on external information; he and Thierry will often come up with new product ideas, and the team backs them up one hundred per cent…’ (CEO 1). In the words of another CEO, ‘… José really is the person people turn to for advice when nothing else seems to work; he can always suggest how we could use this or that approach that worked for some other company …’ (CEO 8).

All the CEOs from the group of eight firms stressed the importance of maintaining quality contacts with clients at the end of the process, this being the best moment to identify new needs or gauge interest in new product ideas. For these senior company officers, new product development must of necessity constitute a response to client or market needs. At the same time, it also calls for strategies that allow a firm to keep abreast of whatever innovations the competition is implementing. These are situations where product development can often be rapid, with results sometimes better than what the rival company has achieved.

In spite of the limited size of the sample, it is also interesting to note that two of the firms chose to focus on diversification. Neither adopted a mixed management strategy for its R&D; one used internal management and the other an external management approach.

The need to change ways of carrying out work, as a result of internal or external innovations, was perceived as a benefit by the group of eight CEOs, all of whom maintained that, in their respective ways, they had the capacity to modify processes and strategies, when needed: ‘… Calling yourself into question is tough, but that's what you have to do to survive…’ (CEO 5).

The interviewees adopted a more critical attitude when results were reviewed as part of the breakdown of variables. Eight of them identified two variables they felt were irrelevant (‘patents pending’ and ‘patents filed’), arguing that obtaining patents was basically an unproductive exercise for small businesses, given confidentiality issues, the need to protect their own specific expertise, and simply the costs associated with filing and renewing patents.

Discussion

At the conclusion of these interviews, we were in a position to identify conditions required for the creation of new knowledge. Three factors are of particular importance: the creation of an environment conducive to effective interaction, the presence of leaders with the skills needed to ensure needed integration and direction in situations of creative chaos, and the capacity for ongoing self-challenge.

Being open to outside influences, encouraging free-flowing and frequent interactions at all levels and creating opportunities for the expression of a range of opinions are all crucial factors in the capability of a firm to generate new knowledge. Caloghirou et al. (2004) studied the relative effectiveness of specific mechanisms of knowledge creation and knowledge transfer used by firms, and their effect on the firms’ levels of innovation.

Lin et al. (2002) also see interactions and linkages as being key to the creation and integration of knowledge. They have shown that organizational culture plays a decisive role in the nature and quality of interactions (Lin et al., 2002). Kodama (2005) argues that easily used informal and fluid linkages need to be developed between networks of strategic communities for new knowledge to be developed because formal, more bureaucratic, structures are not often conducive to effective learning.

For their part, Cavusgil et al. (2003) stress the need for the existence of relations of trust between the people or groups involved, while, in addition, Kodama (2005, p. 38) focuses on the vital importance of characteristics such as flexibility and speed.

Above all, the development of new organizational knowledge requires leaders with the capacity to manage diverse ways of thinking and acting and to provide effective direction to the new forms of knowledge that can emerge as a result. Beech et al. (2002) consider that constructive conflicts are an important instrument for generating new knowledge. In the case of employees who might be described as contributing to awareness and transfer of external knowledge, we believe that, contrary to what could be deduced from a rapid reading of the interview transcripts, this is not simply a question of leadership, but in fact a reflection of the capacity to manage and integrate external knowledge. Kodama (2005) and Joffres et al. (2004) come to the very same conclusion and also point out the important role played by leaders of strategic communities in the constructive management of disagreement. Hussi (2004), for his part, stresses the need for people to be able to challenge their own ways of thinking or acting and reframe problems and solutions, if they want to be innovators.

One point that has not been addressed in the literature is the issue raised in some interviews of the need for maintaining quality contacts with clients or the market at the end of the process. This kind of contact fulfils a dual purpose: to identify new needs or gauge interest in new ideas. The same can be said of the strategy of maintaining watching briefs, summed up somewhat succinctly in reference to the attitude of one employee ‘who always has an ear to the ground to pick up on what's happening outside’. The operationalization of these latter variables would give additional weight to any future model adopted.

Conclusion

Our preliminary overview brings out the fact that companies that are the most open (and whose leaders are most open) inspire a strong absorptive capacity and thereby develop a greater capacity for innovation. This was the case for eight of the ten firms in the sample. As this preliminary research focused on innovative small and medium-sized businesses, one of the limitations of the study could be the issue of the personality of their particular CEOs. At the same time, choices about adopting strategies of openness and encouraging employees to work with external partners clearly reflected significant overall managerial commitment. This is certainly the first finding to be drawn from our research, one that we will bear in mind and validate in future analyses.

Another issue that calls for further and more in-depth analysis is the role of trust in the operationalization of absorptive capacity. Does it in fact affect this capacity – and if so, how? Was it simply specific to the sample group of small and medium-sized businesses studied, or to the heads of those firms? Would it be useful to investigate the existence of a possible interrelationship between trust and routines or procedures that integrate external knowledge? In spite of the limits inherent in a preliminary analysis based on such a small sample, the contribution of this particular research study lies in its opening up the possibility of developing a grid to operationalize the assessment of absorptive capacity. It should ultimately lead to the development of an instrument that can be used to assess the absorptive capacity of all companies. The availability of tools of this kind to measure absorptive capacity has the potential to open up some promising avenues for research on organizational learning and its effectiveness, or on the capacity for innovation in different firms.