Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

How does the ambidexterity of technological learning routine affect firm T

innovation performance within industrial clusters? The moderating effects
of knowledge attributes
⁎
Jingjing Guoa,b, Bin Guoc, , Jianghua Zhoud, Xiaobo Wue
a
Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
b
School of Public Policy and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
c
School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
d
Business School, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
e
School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper focuses on the influence of the ambidexterity of technological learning routine on firm innovation
Ambidexterity performance within industrial clusters. Specifically, this study seeks to examine how the combined dimension
Technological learning routine and the balance dimension of the ambidexterity of technological learning routine affect innovation performance
Knowledge tacitness of cluster firms. In addition, this study examines the moderating effect of knowledge tacitness and knowledge
Knowledge heterogeneity
heterogeneity on the relationship between the ambidexterity of technological learning routine and innovation
Innovation performance
performance. Survey data from 217 industrial cluster firms in China reveals that the combined ambidexterity of
technological learning routine promotes firm innovation performance, whereas the effect of the balance ambi-
dexterity of technological learning routine on innovation performance is not supported. Besides, knowledge
tacitness moderates the relationship between the ambidexterity of technological learning routine and firm in-
novation performance within industrial clusters, while the moderating effects of knowledge heterogeneity on the
relationship between combined or balance ambidexterity of technological learning routine and innovation
performance are not supported. This paper brings greater theoretical insights into the notion of technological
learning routine by applying the ambidexterity perspective, and advances the understanding of the contextual
factors between the routine ambidexterity-innovation performance relationship through elucidating the mod-
erating role of knowledge attributes.

1. Introduction
Organization routines are regular and repetitive patterns of inter-
dependent organizational actions that are critical to the evolution of
firms and their ability to innovate and achieve sustainable competitive
advantage (Aime et al., 2010; Becker, 2005; Eisenhardt and
Martin, 2000; Hales and Tidd, 2009; Nelson and Winter, 1982;
Parmigiani and Howard-Grenville, 2011). As a central concept to un-
derstand how organizations accomplish their work (Parmigiani and
Howard-Grenville, 2011; Salvato and Rerup, 2011), organization rou-
tines have been attracting the increasing research attention during past
decades, which emphasizes routines are the basic components of or-
ganization behavior and repositories of organisational capabilities and
solutions to inefficiency problems within organisations (Aroles and
McLean, 2016; Becker et al., 2005; Nelson and Winter, 1982;
Feldman and Pentland, 2003; Feldman et al., 2016; Pentland et al.,
2011; Koumakhov and Daoud, 2017; Salvato and Rerup, 2011;
Winter, 2017). Despite the considerable conceptual literature, the re-
quirements for greater clarity about the domain and operationalization
of the routine construct still prevail today (Guo et al., 2018), and re-
search on routines is hampered by a lack of operational content and
empirical measurement for validation of the theoretical construct
(Becker, 2005; Lewin et al., 2011; Pavitt, 2002). To heed the call to
elaborate and augment the understanding of organizational routines by
studying routines empirically (Becker, 2005; Parmigiani and Howard-
Grenville, 2011; Pavitt, 2002), this study advances the conceptualiza-
tion of technological learning routine based on the absorptive capacity
perspective. The absorptive capacity lens has emphasized the view of
routines as the basis for organization learning and demonstrated that
routines exist through which firms acquire, assimilate, transform and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: guojingjing@casipm.ac.cn (J. Guo), guob@zju.edu.cn (B. Guo), zhoujh@bnu.edu.cn (J. Zhou), xbwu@zju.edu.cn (X. Wu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119990
Received 4 March 2019; Received in revised form 9 January 2020; Accepted 2 March 2020
0040-1625/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J. Guo, et al.
exploit knowledge (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998; Lane and Koka, 2006;
Lavie et al., 2010; Lewin et al., 2011; Zahra and George, 2002). Spe-
cifically, this study defines the technological learning routine as the
recurrent and interactive technological learning behavioural pattern
involving multiple actors within organizations by which organizations
acquire, maintain, reactivate and transform knowledge (Carlile and
Rebentisch, 2003; Feldman and Pentland, 2003; García-Muiña and
González-Sánchez, 2017; Garud and Nayyar, 1994; Guo et al., 2018;
Zahra and George, 2002).
Intensity and variety have been identified as the two key char-
acteristics of organization routines grounded in the evolutionary theory
of economics (Becker, 2005; Pentland, 2003a, 2003b; Guo et al., 2018).
This study builds up around these two dimensions and considers them
as the important features of the technological learning routine. More
specifically, under turbulent and complex technological environment,
firms confront in essence the challenge of carrying these two non-sub-
stitutable set of recurrent technological learning behavioral patterns.
On the one hand, intense technological learning routine is helpful to
ensure constant collective learning and advance the coordination of
technological learning activities (Nelson and Winter, 1982;
Szulanski, 1996). On the other hand, diverse technological learning
routine facilitates firms to accommodate dynamic environment and
promotes flexibility and change within organizations based on complex
and extensive repetitions (Aroles and McLean, 2016; Feldman, 2000;
Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; Pentland and Rueter, 1994). As
O'Reilly and Tushman (2008) and Rothaermel and Alexandre (2009)
suggest, when a firm pursues both the intensity and the variety of the
technological learning routine simultaneously, we define that the firm
exhibits ambidexterity in technological learning routine.
However, prior studies have paid little attention to the ambi-
dexterity of a firm's technological learning routine, as well as the per-
formance effect of routine ambidexterity on innovation outcomes. On
the one hand, some recent work postulates that routines are ambidex-
trous by nature (Parmigiani and Howard-Grenville, 2011) and presents
some caveats with regarding to potential boundary conditions to
achieve the ambidexterity of routines (Adler et al., 1999; Collinson and
Wilson, 2006; Howard-Grenville, 2005). Nonetheless, a more holistic
understanding of the ambidexterity of technological learning routine is
still missing in this field. On the other hand, the existing research
concerns more with the impacts of routines on organizational perfor-
mance (Aime et al., 2010; Knott, 2003; Peng et al., 2008; Zollo et al.,
2002), whereas the link between routine ambidexterity and perfor-
mance outcomes of organizations remains rather implicit so far. For
instance, Peng et al. (2008) link routines to improvement and innova-
tion capabilities and further to performance measures using a plant-
level survey. Zollo et al. (2002) conduct a survey of biotech and
pharmaceutical alliances and find that inter-organizational routines
improve alliance performance.
In addition, among the organizational ambidexterity literature,
previous research displays contradictory empirical evidence regarding
the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and innovation
performance in spite of the theoretical impact of organizational ambi-
dexterity on organizational performance and long-term survival
(Cao et al., 2009; He and Wong, 2004; March, 1991; Tushman and
O'Reilly, 1996). One stream of research demonstrates the positive
performance effect of organizational ambidexterity (Derbyshire, 2014;
He and Wong, 2004; Lin et al., 2013; Lubatkin et al., 2006;
Tushman and O'Reilly, 1996), whereas the other stream of research
argues that ambidexterity may lead to inferior performance because of
the lack of internal consistency and munificent resource
(Kauppila, 2015; Rothaermel and Alexandre, 2009; Stettner and
Lavie, 2014; Van Looy et al., 2005; Venkatraman et al., 2007;
Wernerfelt and Montgomery, 1988). This study attempts to reconcile
the mix findings through introducing the contingent role of knowledge
attributes in shaping the relationship between ambidexterity in tech-
nological learning routine and innovation performance through the
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990
theoretical lens of absorptive capacity. The absorptive capacity lens has
postulated that the performance outcome of learning activities and
process is influenced by the characteristics of knowledge an organiza-
tion possesses and seeks (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Lane et al., 2006;
Solís-Molina et al., 2018). As such, knowledge tacitness and knowledge
heterogeneity have drawn much attention (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990;
Lane et al., 2006; Parmigiani and Howard-Grenville, 2011;
Simonin, 1999; Szulanski, 1996). Building on the absorptive capacity
perspective, we argue that knowledge attributes influence how easily
knowledge transfers within and across firm boundaries, how much of it
is retained, and the rate at which knowledge is reactivated and trans-
formed (Argote et al., 2003), and thereby may guide a firm in different
ways to coordinate the configuration of the technological learning
routine for innovation performance (Choo and Bontis, 2002; van den
Berg, 2013).
In sum, this study seeks to examine the influence of the ambi-
dexterity of technological learning routine on innovation performance
and how knowledge attributes moderate the impact of the ambi-
dexterity of technological learning routine. In doing so, this study
contributes to an enriched understanding of the relationship between
the ambidexterity of technological learning routine and innovation
performance, and thus responds to the call to empirically validate the
performance impact of technological learning routine (Becker, 2004;
Hales and Tidd, 2009). More specifically, in line with Cao et al. (2009),
this study unpacks the ambidexterity of technological learning routine
into balance and combined dimensions. Following Carlile and
Rebentisch (2003) and Carlo et al. (2012), we also distinguish knowl-
edge tacitness and knowledge heterogeneity as the two key knowledge
attributes. In addition, we choose industrial clusters in China as our
research setting. First, the pervasive nature of knowledge transfer and
the significance of the ambidexterity of technological learning routine
to the sustainable success of firms within industrial cluster provide a
rich research setting to explore the performance effect of learning
routine ambidexterity (Breschi and Malerba, 2001; Giuliani and
Bell, 2005; Guo et al., 2018). Second, industrial clusters in China de-
velop very rapidly in terms of both number and scale (Guo and
Guo, 2013), and the success of clusters in China is featured by the
crucial role of technological learning and knowledge spillover of main
actors (Guo and Guo, 2011). These make industrial clusters in Chinese
context suitable settings to examine the moderation of knowledge at-
tributes on the performance effect of technological learning routine
ambidexterity. We test our hypotheses with a sample of 217 firms
within industrial clusters in China.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 pos-
tulates the hypotheses. Section 3 presents the research method and
Section 4 reports the empirical results. Discussions and contributions
are presented in Section 5.
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses
2.1. The ambidexterity of technological learning routine
Technological learning routines are regular and predictable beha-
vioral patterns conducted by multiple actors during the technological
learning process of firms (Feldman and Pentland, 2003; García-
Muiña and González-Sánchez, 2017; Nelson and Winter, 1982). Such
behavioral regularities are critical to the evolution of firms and their
competence to innovate (Hales and Tidd, 2009; Nelson and
Winter, 1982), and enable firms to properly confront the opportunities
and challenges of a dynamic environment to compete and survive
(García-Muiña and González-Sánchez, 2017; Lane et al., 2006). Based
on the absorptive capacity perspective, this study operationalizes
technological learning routine on the basis of four distinct types of
knowledge processing activities, i.e., knowledge acquisition, knowledge
maintenance, knowledge reactivation and knowledge transformation
(Carlile and Rebentisch, 2003; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Garud and
J. Guo, et al.
Nayyar, 1994; Zahra and George, 2002). On the one hand, the ab-
sorptive capacity literature highlights that routines can provide the
microfoundations and key mechanisms for knowledge accumulation
and technological learning, and posits that routines exist during the
technological learning process of organizations (Lane and Koka, 2006;
Lavie et al., 2010; Lewin et al., 2011; Zahra and George, 2002). On the
other hand, these four types of learning activities have garnered much
focus among the absorptive capacity literature and formulate a com-
prehensive framework of technological learning process within orga-
nizations (Carlile, 2004; Carlile and Rebentisch, 2003; Guo et al., 2018;
Hargadon and Sutton, 1997). For example, Hargadon and Sutton (1997)
postulate that firms solve current problems by drawing on past ex-
periences through three fundamental processes as acquisition, retention
and retrieval of knowledge and information from the past.
Carlile (2004) presents the knowledge transformation cycle across the
stages of knowledge storage, knowledge retrieval and knowledge
transformation.
With regard to the four types of knowledge processing activities,
knowledge acquisition denotes recognizing and obtaining knowledge
from external sources that is crucial to firms’ operation (Zahra and
George, 2002); knowledge maintenance involves adding knowledge to
the existing knowledge base to facilitate its future retrieval and use
(Carlile and Rebentisch, 2003; Garud and Nayyar, 1994); knowledge
reactivation refers to accessing and bringing into use all of the indis-
pensible facets of maintained knowledge once the potential for ex-
ploiting maintained knowledge vectors is recognized (Garud and
Nayyar, 1994); and knowledge transformation pertains to integrating
retrieved knowledge with other knowledge vectors to exploit new
business and product opportunities for current market needs
(Carlile and Rebentisch, 2003; Fernhaber and Patel, 2012).
Intensity and variety are viewed as key features of the technological
learning routine in the evolutionary theory of economics (Cohen et al.,
1996; Pentland, 2003a, 2003b). First, the evolutionary economics re-
search identifies recurrent interaction patterns by recurrence, which
can be most simply measured as intensity (Becker, 2005; Cohen et al.,
1996; Pentland and Rueter, 1994; Betsch et al., 2001). Second, the
evolutionary economics research highlights that variety is a critical
feature of routines and reflects variety in either the action sequences or
the content of activity (Becker, 2005; Pentland, 2003a, 2003b). More
specifically, the intensity of technological learning routine is defined as
the extent to which continuing efforts to carry out the same interaction
behavioral patterns actually take place during the technological
learning process within firms, whereas the variety of technological
learning routine pertains to the extent to which the firm's technological
learning routine contains diverse interactive behavioral patterns
(Becker, 2005; Figueiredo, 2003). Both intensity and variety of tech-
nological learning routine are critical to firms’ innovation and long-run
survival (Pentland, 2003a, 2003b). The intensity of technological
learning routine makes firms become efficient structures for collective
learning (Anand et al., 2003; March and Simon 1958) and the refine-
ment of process and product improvements (van Wijk et al., 2012),
while diverse technological learning routines are indispensible for firms
to adapt a range of responses to fit current circumstances and enable
firms to accommodate dynamic technological environment
(Hargadon and Sutton, 1997).
This study applies the ambidexterity perspective to enrich our un-
derstanding of technological learning routine based on the intensity-
variety lens. Specifically, we associate the intensity of the technological
learning routine with exploitation and the variety of the technological
learning routine with exploration. The reasons of using such dichotomy
of technological learning routine to capture the feature of ex-
ploration–exploitation are as follows. First, it has been acknowledged
that exploration and exploitation are related to different organizational
processes (Tushman and O'Reilly, 1996), for which exploration involves
individuals and organizations in search, trial and error, and variation
rooted in variance-increasing activities, whereas exploitation improves
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990
efficiency through choice and implementation rooted in variance-de-
creasing activities (March, 1991; Lavie et al., 2010; Smith and
Tushman, 2005). In this vein, the intensity of the technological learning
routine captures the nature of exploitation in that it reflects variance
reduction as to the regular behavioral patterns during the technological
learning process of firms, while the variety of the technological learning
routine can be aligned to exploration since it indicates variance in-
crease in the technological learning behavioral patterns of firms.
Second, scholars have been increasingly recognized that in reality
ambidexterity is not constrained to a certain organizational level, or a
specific function area (O'Cass et al., 2014), and it can be extended by
broadly associating exploration with organizational diversity and var-
iation, as well as relating exploitation to organizational focus and
variance reduction (Lavie et al., 2010). For instance, Medlin and
Törnroos (2015) demonstrate how ambidexterity of exploration and
exploitation is managed in a dynamic business network, and elaborate
exploration and exploitation as three processes shared between actors
that include exploring the present business network to find partners,
exploiting the emerging network and exploring and finding a network-
technology fit. O'Cass et al. (2014) assert that firms become ambidex-
trous when corporate-level exploratory and exploitative strategies have
interactions with operational-level exploratory and exploitative cap-
abilities among different functional areas. The above noted studies
argue that prior ambidexterity literature mostly focuses on the internal
capabilities of firms, while ignoring the organization process between
or within firms (Medlin and Törnroos, 2015; O'Cass et al., 2014). In line
with their argument, we use the intensity-variety lens to illustrate the
characteristics of organization process and behavioral patterns of
technological learning. Heeding the call by Rothaermel and
Alexandre (2009), this study purposively extends organizational am-
bidexterity to describe a firm's ability to pursue the intensity and the
variety of technological learning routine concurrently.
In a dynamic environment, the ambidexterity of technological
learning routine is critical to firm innovation performance in that it not
only mitigates the risks from overcommitting either the intensity or the
variety of technological learning routine, but also develop a wide range
of capabilities to be leveraged between the intensity and the variety of
technological learning routine (Cao et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2014).
There are two different dimensions to understand ambidexterity.
For instance, He and Wong (2004) use both an interaction term and a
difference term to measure ambidexterity and examine the effects of
ambidexterity on sale growth revenue. Cao et al. (2009) point out the
balance dimension of ambidexterity and the combined dimension of
ambidexterity as two dimensions of ambidexterity and illustrate that
concurrent high level of these two dimensions yield synergistic benefits
to improve firm performance. Wei et al. (2014) categorize ambi-
dexterity into a relative exploratory dimension and an interactive di-
mension and further investigate the different influence of these two
dimensions on new product development. In this study, to capture a
more holistic and integrative picture of the construct, we unpack the
ambidexterity of technological learning routine into two distinct di-
mensions termed as the balance dimension and the combined dimen-
sion, respectively. The balance dimension pertains to the efforts to
balance the relative magnitude of the intensity and the variety of
technological learning routine to find the optimal structure, whereas
the combined dimension focuses on the absolute magnitude of the in-
tensity and the variety of technological learning routine to increase
their complementary effects (Cao et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2014). These
two dimensions are conceptually different. Taking an example that is
similarly used in Cao et al. (2009), Firm A has a score of 8 on the variety
of technological learning routine and 4 on the intensity of technological
learning routine, while Firm B has a score of 4 on both the intensity and
the variety of technological learning routine. For Firm A, the assess-
ment of balance ambidexterity is lower and that of combined ambi-
dexterity is higher compared to Firm B. As to Firm B, the assessment of
balance ambidexterity is higher and that of combined ambidexterity is
J. Guo, et al.
lower in comparison to Firm A. In this sense, even if both firms carry
out both the intensity and the variety of technological learning routine,
the differences in the relative magnitude and the absolute magnitude of
the intensity and the variety make combined ambidexterity con-
ceptually different from balance ambidexterity.
2.2. The ambidexterity of technological learning routine and innovation
performance
2.2.1. The combined ambidexterity and innovation performance
Intensity and variety of technological learning routine may function
in complementary domains and have mutual beneficial effects
(Cao et al., 2009; Gupta et al., 2006; Wei et al., 2014). A high degree of
the intensity of technological learning routine often equips firms with
the necessary capability to conduct diverse technological learning
routines that promote new product development and innovation per-
formance. Specifically speaking, intense technological learning routine
is more likely to lead to adequate and effective knowledge acquisition,
assimilation and integration for innovation purpose (Figueiredo, 2003),
generate learning by doing effects (Arrow, 1962; Becker, 2005), and
enable firms to understand deeply the functionality of repeatedly used
recurrent behavioral patterns during innovation process (Cao et al.,
2009). Such deeper understanding ensures firms the capability to better
reconfigure existing recurrent behavioral patterns and carry out diverse
technological learning routine to develop new products and promote
organizational innovation (Cao et al., 2009; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990;
Wei et al., 2014; Zahra and George 2002). Besides, the intensity of
technological learning routine helps firms to economize on bounded
cognitive resources by eliminating the need to deliberate over proper
action (Anand et al., 2003; Cyert and March, 1963) and dealing with
repetitive decisions through semi-conscious mechanisms
(Figueiredo, 2003; Nelson and Winter, 1982). In this sense, cognitive
resources within organizations can be released in some degree, and
then be used to concentrate on more kinds of knowledge processing
activities (March and Simon, 1958).
Diverse technological learning routine enables firms to build up
technological capability (Dosi, 1988), which is helpful to improve the
usefulness of the intensity of technological learning routine. When a
firm pursues a wide variety of recurrent behavioral patterns during
knowledge acquisition, maintenance, reactivation and transformation
process, it obtains greater understanding of different technology do-
mains involved in the process of new product development and the
principles and rules entailed through the whole knowledge transfor-
mation process (Becker et al., 2005; Huber, 1996). In this regard, the
firm's capability to conduct some kind of technological learning routine
intensely will be enhanced because it is able to select more appropriate
technological learning routine for innovation purpose and perform the
relevant activities smoothly based on the accumulated technological
capability (Rumelt, 1995).
In sum, the central idea in the conceptualization of the combined
ambidexterity of technological learning routines is that the intensity
and the variety of technological learning routines are not necessarily
competing each other (Cao et al., 2009; Gupta et al., 2006), and firms
may shift between the intensity and the variety (Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1997). In this vein, we have postulated that the intensity
and the variety of technological learning routines can complement each
other and further improve innovation performance since organizational
capabilities can be leveraged across both behavioral patterns
(Cao et al., 2009).
Hypothesis 1. The combined ambidexterity of technological learning
routines is positively related to innovation performance of cluster firm.
2.2.2. The balance ambidexterity and innovation performance
We expect that matching the relative magnitude of the intensity and
the variety of technological learning routine more closely makes
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990
contribution to innovation performance by appropriately controlling
potential performance risk. On the one hand, the overemphasis on the
intensity of technological learning routine may lead to the risk of or-
ganization inertia and path dependence (Pentland, 1995). The intensity
of technological learning routine is critical to innovation performance
in that it ensures the continuous acquisition of external knowledge
(Leonard-Barton, 1992), enables firms to draw on a pool of prior sti-
mulus-response information (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997), and facil-
itates the combination of prior knowledge and current knowledge
(Carlile, 2002). However, when a firm's magnitude of the intensity of
technological learning routine well exceeds that of the variety of
technological learning routine, the above mentioned risk may emerge
and limit the expansion of knowledge scope in some degree
(Argyris and Schön, 1978), constrain the firm by competence traps
(March, 1994), and make the firm take action slowly to renew knowl-
edge base and upgrade product design under the circumstances of dy-
namic technological and market change (Cao et al., 2009; Wei et al.,
2014). As such, the adaptability to new opportunities may be decreased
and firms will be limited to the intrinsic performance of that technology
trajectory due to concentrating on the same knowledge process activ-
ities (Christensen, 1997; Dosi, 1988; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004;
Wei et al., 2014).
In contrast, when a firm overemphasizes the variety of technological
learning routine, the firm will be subject to the risk of failing to accu-
mulate adequate technological capabilities from its costly knowledge
processing activities (Cao et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2013; Levinthal and
March, 1993). Although the variety of technological learning routine is
helpful to obtain diverse knowledge, enrich organization memory
(Carlile and Rebentisch, 2003; Walsh and Ungson, 1991), and provide
solutions timely for new unstructured problems when technological
environment is dynamic (Glazer, 1991), excessively diverse technolo-
gical learning routines possibly lead to continuous drain on organiza-
tional resources and lower efficiency as the acquisition, storage and
reactivation of external knowledge and its integration with existing
knowledge stock in a diverse manner are often costly and time con-
suming (Lee et al., 2013). Moreover, it may be a constraining influence
for organizations to make decisions that have a higher mutual fit and
frustrate coordination between different parts of the firm
(Becker, 2005; Simon, 1947). And also it cannot ensure enough
knowledge assimilation and integration since a stable baseline against
which to assess feedback, compare and draw implication cannot be
established (Becker, 2005; Tyre and Orlikowski, 1996).
Taken together, the conceptualization of the combined ambi-
dexterity of technological learning routines may also suggest that the
intensity and the variety could compete each other sometimes. Building
on this logic, we have elaborated that failing to achieve a high level of
balanced ambidexterity of technological learning routines can result in
either the risk of organization inertia due to path dependence or the risk
of failing to accumulate adequate technological capabilities. In contrast,
we expect that firms keeping a balance between the intensity and the
variety of technological learning routine are able to achieve superior
innovation performance due to effectively avoiding the above noted
risks than firms that overemphasize one at the expense of the other
(Levinthal and March, 1993; Tushman and O'Reilly, 1996).
Hypothesis 2. The balance ambidexterity of technological learning routines
is positively related to innovation performance of cluster firm.
2.3. The moderating effect of knowledge tacitness
Knowledge tacitness refers to the extent to which the unspecifiable
process of knowing-in-action that is unlikely to articulate and com-
municate to others (Polanyi, 1967). In a tacit (as opposed to explicit)
knowledge context, it is difficult to understand the complicated rela-
tions of the elements comprising technological knowledge, creates
barriers to knowledge acquisition, reactivation and transformation
J. Guo, et al.
(Kogut and Zander, 1992; Nonaka, 1994; Simonin, 1999; Urgal et al.,
2013), and permits indirect appropriation (Grant, 1996). Thus, in a
context with high levels of knowledge tacitness, it is not only difficult
for firms to modify and adjust the extent and the range of recurrent
behavioral patterns during technological learning process, but also hard
for firms to get access to external knowledge and resources.
The combined ambidexterity of technological learning routines in-
dicates the necessity and efforts to conduct high levels of the absolute
magnitude of the intensity and the variety of technological learning
routine (Cao et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2014). The manner in which firms
implement the combined ambidexterity of technological learning rou-
tines is critical to capability building and innovation, and entails
varying organizing logics, coordination rules and collective pattern of
interaction (Figueiredo, 2003; Helfat and Peteraf, 2003; Wei et al.,
2014). In a context featured with high levels of knowledge tacitness,
these organizing logics and coordination rules are hard to be replicated
by competitors within industrial clusters as they are highly context-
dependent (McIver et al., 2013) and ambiguous to competitors
(Reed and DeFillippi, 1990). Consequently, competitors’ efforts to re-
plicate the way the combined ambidexterity of technological learning
routines work and how it is organized will be frustrated, and the firm's
performance advantage is then prolonged (Bierly et al., 2009;
McEvily and Chakravarthy, 2002). With sustained market performance,
firms will be more market-oriented; that is, they emphasize monitoring
market conditions, keeping track of market trends, and analyzing cus-
tomer needs and competitor actions (Wang et al., 2013). Hence they
will invest more on innovation based on their expectations on market,
strive to present novel ideas and better solutions to respond to market
change, and embrace and enhance innovations that are tailored to
customer needs and market change (Amir and Ahad, 2018;
Dekoulou et al., 2017; Liu and Atuahene-Gima, 2018; Pekovic et al.,
2016; Song et al., 2015). In addition, knowledge tacitness not only
protects the accumulated knowledge and capability from imitation, but
also fosters creativity due to less formalisation and increased R&D au-
tonomy (Hedlund, 1994). At high levels of knowledge tacitness, the
accumulated knowledge and capability arising from combining the in-
tensity and the variety of technological learning routine are more likely
to stimulate unique solutions and discovery to market and technological
problems (Berman et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2013), and contribute largely
to the speeding-up of innovation process (Blümm, 2002).
Hypothesis 3. The relationship between combined ambidexterity of
technological learning routines and innovation performance is moderated
by knowledge tacitness. The higher the level of knowledge tacitness, the
greater the positive effect of combined ambidexterity on innovation
performance.
Firms are likely to be subject to the risks due to the imbalance be-
tween the intensity and the variety of technological learning routine.
However, in a context of low knowledge tacitness, failing to maintain
an appropriate balance between the intensity and the variety of tech-
nological learning routine may not be necessary to affect innovation
performance negatively. This is because explicit knowledge is easily
transferred, replicated and integrated due to its public and non-riv-
alrous nature (Heiman and Nickerson, 2004; Langlois and
Robertson, 1996). Thus, it is more feasible for firms to adjust the re-
lative magnitude of the intensity and the variety of technological
learning routine to achieve a close match when they realize the over-
emphasis on either the intensity or the variety of technological learning
routine. As a result, the imbalance risks will be mitigated in time and
effectively when they emerge. Moreover, considering that codified
knowledge cannot ensure the appropriability of value (van den
Berg, 2013), firms are easier to obtain an understanding of how to
access necessary external resources and further acquire these resources
to provide a better buffer to mitigate risks arising from the imbalance
between the intensity and the variety of technological learning routine
(Cao et al., 2009).
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990
In contrast, when much of the knowledge is tacit, achieving an
appropriate balance between the intensity and the variety of techno-
logical learning routines to mitigate either the risk of organization in-
ertia and path dependence or the risk of failure to accumulate adequate
technological capabilities turns to be very crucial. In such circum-
stances, when firms overemphasize either the intensity or the variety of
technological learning routine, it will be difficult for them to adjust the
relative magnitude of the intensity and the variety of technological
learning routine in a timely manner because tacit knowledge must be
transferred and acquired through experience in a costly and slow pro-
cess (Grant, 2002) and requires a greater degree of intimacy and per-
manence to be transformed (Hedlund, 1994). Besides, when the im-
balance risks happen, it is less likely for firms to get to know where the
necessary resources are and how to get in touch with the resources
quickly due to the appropriability of value from tacit knowledge
(Grant, 1996). Therefore, we propose that the balance ambidexterity of
technological learning routines is more important for firms in a context
featured with high levels of knowledge tacitness.
Hypothesis 4. The relationship between balance ambidexterity of
technological learning routines and innovation performance is moderated
by knowledge tacitness. The higher the level of knowledge tacitness, the
greater the positive effect of balance ambidexterity on innovation
performance.
2.4. The moderating effect of knowledge heterogeneity
Knowledge heterogeneity reflects how firms differ in the knowl-
edge, know-how, and expertise with respect to their current product
portfolios, equipments and manufacturing processes within industrial
clusters (Rodan and Galunic, 2004; Tsai et al., 2014). In a hetero-
geneous knowledge context, it may lead to inaccurate communication
and greater processing complexity (Pelled et al., 1999; Pitt and
McVaugh, 2008; Tsai, 2018). As heterogeneity in the amount and type
of domain-specific knowledge increases, it will require more effort and
energy to acquire, store, reactivate and transform knowledge
(Carlile, 2004). Hence, the feasibility to modify and adjust the extent
and the range of different dimensions of technological learning routine
will be greatly decreased.
In a heterogeneous knowledge context, a firm is more likely to ap-
propriate and sustain innovation performance advantage from the
pursuit of combined ambidexterity of technological learning routines,
because in this case those organizing logics and coordination rules
taken by this firm may be incompatible with other firms within in-
dustrial clusters even if they are spillovered. Besides, at high levels of
knowledge heterogeneity, the accumulated knowledge and capability
arising from combined ambidexterity of technological learning routines
are more likely to create novel linkages (Carlo et al., 2012), stimulate
creativity and multiple idea generation (Amabile, 1996; Smith et al.,
2005), and further promote innovation performance.
Hypothesis 5a. The relationship between combined ambidexterity of
technological learning routines and innovation performance is moderated
by knowledge heterogeneity. The higher the level of knowledge heterogeneity,
the greater the positive effect of combined ambidexterity on innovation
performance.
On the other hand, firms may be more inclined to pursue intense
technological learning routines in a heterogeneous knowledge context,
because such practices can effectively save cognitive resources
(Gersick and Hackman, 1990) and further reduce the cost of learning.
Besides, firms with heterogeneous knowledge domains have more
chance to target differentiated niche markets in the given industry and
they often have an enriched understanding of the technological
learning routines they need (Guo et al., 2018). In this sense, these firms
may benefit more from undertaking appropriate routines intensely ra-
ther than broadly. As a consequence, the combined ambidexterity of
technological learning routines can not satisfy what firms truly need
J. Guo, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990

when knowledge heterogeneity is high and increased combined ambi- 2007.

dexterity may lead to decreased innovation performance due to misfit The questionnaire was designed in three phases. At the initial stage,
problem. Therefore, we propose the following competing hypothesis: the measurement scales were constructed based on previous studies
Hypothesis 5b. (competing hypothesis): The relationship between gathered from the review of literature. In the second phase, to ensure
combined ambidexterity of technological learning routines and innovation the appropriateness of the developed questionnaire, we pretested the
performance is moderated by knowledge heterogeneity. The higher the level questionnaire with five academics in the field of technological learning
of knowledge heterogeneity, the lower the positive effect of combined and innovation and five senior managers of R&D department in cluster
ambidexterity on innovation performance. firms. They were asked to give suggestions on the structure and content
of scales and provide clarity to the measurement. We improved or
A critical potential benefit of balance ambidexterity of technological
eliminated the items on the basis of their comments and assessment. In
learning routines comes from the alleviation of either the risk of or-
the third phase, we further pretested the revised questionnaire by col-
ganization inertia and path dependence due to overemphasis on some
lecting 15 questionnaires for a further feedback. Then we conducted a
specific technological learning routine without a commensurate com-
formal survey by using the finalized questionnaire.
mitment to the variety of technological learning routine, or the risk of
We used a manufacturing firm database developed at Zhejiang
the failure to build up adequate organizational capabilities as a result of
University which contains manufacturing firms’ information in the YRD
overemphasis on a wide range of technological learning routine without
region. After selecting firm samples according to the location and the
a corresponding level of focusing on some technological learning rou-
industry of typical clusters, we considered the managers of R&D de-
tine intensely (Cao et al., 2009). Such overemphasis risks will be less
partment in this database as appropriate respondents, as they are most
threatening in a more homogeneous knowledge context. It is easier for
likely the core drivers and executors of technological learning routine
them to adjust the relative magnitude of the intensity and the variety of
within organizations and familiar with this issue (Lee and Wong, 2015;
technological learning routine to mitigate the risks in a timely and ef-
Zhang et al., 2006). In addition, following De Clercq et al. (2013),
fective manner when firms realize overemphasis problem, because
Oerlemans et al. (2013) and Cruz-González et al. (2015), to minimize
knowledge homogeneity releases the difficulty of adjustment by facil-
concerns on endogeneity and reverse causality, it was explicitly de-
itating firms to trust and understand with each other, reducing search
monstrated in the questionnaire the specific year to which each part of
costs, and promoting knowledge acquisition and further knowledge
questions was referred. Data collection was pursued according to the
processing activities (Brown and Duguid, 1991; Corsaro et al., 2012;
following procedure. First, the electronic questionnaire was sent to the
Powell et al., 1996). For example, if firms intend to increase the in-
respondents by mail together with a covering letter explaining the
tensity of technological learning routine to achieve the balance,
purpose of the survey. Second, two months later, a follow-up procedure
common knowledge and prior experience arising from knowledge
was carried out with the same questionnaire and covering letter for the
homogeneity will facilitate them to select appropriate external sources
non-respondents (Abebe and Angriawan, 2014).
to obtain knowledge. Meanwhile, since external knowledge is more
A total of 482 questionnaires were sent out and 253 complete re-
likely to be compatible with internal knowledge in this case, the need
sponses were received, with a response rate of 52.49%. After matching
and effort to examine the use of the acquired knowledge, make storage
both the location and the dominant industry of the samples with the
decisions, and explore ways to integrate reactivated knowledge with
relevant industrial clusters, 36 samples were excluded and a total of
existing knowledge will also be decreased (Larraneta et al., 2012).
217 valid responses remained. Table 1 shows the demographics for the
Conversely, in a more heterogeneous knowledge context, it is less
217 respondent companies. Approximately, the main industries re-
likely for firms to modify the relative magnitude of the intensity and the
presented were textile (32.7%), communication, computer, other elec-
variety of technological learning routine to mitigate the risks in time
tronic equipment (14.3%), electric equipment and machinery (7.8%)
once they realize the imbalance between these two dimensions, because
and general purpose machinery (7.4%). The sample comprised 71%
knowledge heterogeneity may result in a lack of mutual understanding
private-owned firms and 9.7% sino-foreign joint ventures. Of them,
across working areas, uncertainty and ambiguity in the variety of
27.2% of the respondent firms employed less than 150 employees,
knowledge, and intra-group communication and coordination conflicts
25.3% between 151–350, 39.6% between 351 and 500 and 7.8% more
(Pitt and McVaugh, 2008; Schmickl and Kieser, 2008; Tsai et al., 2014).
than 500 employees. The average age of the samples was 18.23 years
As a result, the adjustment between different dimensions of technolo-
(s.d. = 11.639) and the average firm size was 310 employees
gical learning routine requires multiple interdependent knowledge
(s.d. = 181.278).
vectors to facilitate decision-making process, and relevant processes
To examine potential response bias, the early 30% samples were
and mechanisms that are helpful to create shared meaning and re-
compared with the late 30% samples (Mohr and Spekman, 1994). A t-
concile discrepancies in meaning (Dougherty, 1992; McIver et al., 2013;
test showed no significant differences between the two groups based on
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
firm age and firm size (tvalue = 0.488 and 0.014, respectively), sug-
Hypothesis 6. The relationship between balance ambidexterity of
gesting response bias was unlikely to be an issue in this study.
technological learning routines and innovation performance is moderated
by knowledge heterogeneity. The higher the level of knowledge heterogeneity,
3.2. Measures
the greater the positive effect of balance ambidexterity on innovation
performance.
All measures originally designed in English were translated into
The conceptual model is displayed here.(See Fig. 1.) Chinese according to the back-translation procedure to ensure the
consistent accuracy (Brislin, 1970). Unless otherwise noted, all items
3. Research method were validated on a seven-point Likert scale anchored by 1 = “strongly
disagree” and 7= “strongly agree”.
3.1. Sample and data collection Innovation performance. We measured innovation performance with
a five-item scale based on previous works of Rothaermel and
The empirical work was based on a survey that mainly examined Alexandre (2009), Zhang and Batrol (2010) and Zheng et al. (2013).
firms within industrial clusters in Yangtze River Delta (YRD) region in Respondents were asked to rate their firm's performance over the past
China. The YRD is one of the most developed industrial regions in China three year in terms of the following items:
(Zheng et al., 2011). It accounted for 20.54% of the national gross
domestic product in 2016 (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2017) 1 sales revenue of new products in our firm keeps increasing;
and owned more than one third of all industrial clusters in China in 2 new product profit of our firm keeps increasing;

6
J. Guo, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990

Fig. 1. Research model.

Table 1 3 the number of patent application in our firm keeps increasing;

Sample demographics. 4 the new product profit has met our goals; and
Sample characteristics Frequency Percentage
5 we develop new products more quickly than competitors in the in-
dustry.
Ownership
Private-owned 154 71% Knowledge tacitness. Four measures were used to capture knowledge
Sino-foreign joint venture 21 9.7%
State-owned 19 8.8%
tacitness adapted from Bierly et al. (2009), Guo and Yin (2008),
Collective-owned 4 1.8% Simonin (1999) and Zander and Kogut (1995), including:
Others 19 8.8%
Industry 1 knowledge is easily to be acquired in our firm by instructions,
Textile 71 32.7%
blueprints, formulas, etc.;
Communication, computer, other electronic equipment 31 14.3%
Electric equipment and machinery 17 7.8% 2 knowledge is easily to be acquired in our firm by interacting with
General purpose machinery 16 7.4% experts who have rich experience;
Pharmaceutical 14 6.5% 3 our R&D staffs rely on experience during the process of product
Transport equipment 11 5.1% development in a high degree; and
Artwork and other manufacture 11 5.1%
Textile wearing apparel, footwear and caps 6 2.8%
4 extensive documentation and manuals describing critical parts of
Plastic products 5 2.3% the manufacturing process exist in our firm.
Processing of food from agricultural products 3 1.4%
Others 32 14.7% Knowledge heterogeneity. Drawing on the work of Tsai et al. (2014)
Firm age
and Guo et al. (2018), knowledge heterogeneity was assessed with a
0–10 years 54 24.9%
11–15 years 51 23.5% three-item scale that captures the extent to which the focal firm is
16–20 years 49 22.6% different from other firms in the cluster in terms of product portfolio,
21–30 years 44 20.3% manufacturing equipment, and manufacturing processes.
More than 30 years 19 8.8% Technological learning routine. Parallel instruments were developed
Firm size(number of employees)
0–150(>0 and≤150) 59 27.2%
to measure technological learning routine during four knowledge pro-
151–350 55 25.3% cessing stages. Technological learning routine during the knowledge
351–500 86 39.6% acquisition stage was measured by a fifteen-item scale that was taken
More than 500 17 7.8% from previous work of Guo and Guo (2011), Figueiredo (2003) and
Sales (million RMB yuan)
Harabi (1997). The instrument captures the degree to which the firm
<5 62 28.6%
5–30 82 37.8% could acquire external technological knowledge through hiring en-
30–100 42 19.4% gineers with rich experience and newly graduated engineers, technical
More than 100 31 14.3% publications, patent disclosure, open technical meetings, industrial
trade shows, training, on-site visit, education support, collaborative
development, and interactions with various partners including users,
suppliers, universities and research institutes, etc. Drawing on the work

7
J. Guo, et al.
of Garud and Nayyar (1994), Technological learning routine during the
knowledge maintenance stage was captured by an eight-item measure
which reflects a series of knowledge storage activity sets within firms.
Specific items include: “gather information about market and tech-
nology dynamics”, “make choice decision involving business and re-
search departments”, “use rich media for communication”, “retain staff
with key knowledge”, “store and shelve documents about product de-
velopment”, “catalog shelved technological knowledge”, and “reward
maintenance”. Technological learning routine during the knowledge
reactivation stage was measured by a six-item measure which was also
adapted from Garud and Nayyar (1994). This measure examines how
important it is for firms to seek opportunities to utilize maintained
knowledge through encouraging engineers to move around among
various product teams, organizing symposia to facilitate knowledge
sharing, and publicizing topics under research within organizations,
retrieve and evaluate maintained knowledge through reviewing the
catalog of maintained knowledge and assessing the reliability and va-
lidity of shelved technologies, and provide incentives for knowledge
reactivation during the process of technology and product develop-
ment. Technological learning routine during the knowledge transfor-
mation stage was measured by five items modified from Carlile and
Rebentisch's (2003) comprehensive description of knowledge transfor-
mation stage within the knowledge transformation cycle. This measure
reflects the importance of building teams to reuse maintained knowl-
edge and seeking opportunities for knowledge integration, and facil-
itating knowledge flow across specialization and within specialization
based on meeting and discussion, technical experts who can promote
informal communication among different functional departments, and
the adoption of simulation, product models and drawings during the
research and development process.
The respondents answered the questions on the basis of a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = not at all important; 4 = moderately important;
7 = very important) for each of the above technological learning
routines. The basic question was: For each of the following activity,
please indicate the importance you attach to it during the process of
technology and product development. The raw data of these assess-
ments are represented as IMPj, where j represents the behavioral pat-
tern during each knowledge processing stage and IMP represents the
degree of importance of specific behavioral pattern to a firm. Besides,
respondents were required to indicate whether each behavioral pattern
was systematically conducted within firms on the basis of a 0–1 re-
sponse format, 1 being systematicness and 0 being no systematicness.
Knowledge processing activity with systematicness means that firms
have clear rules, procedures and methods to undertake such activity. In
this study, we regarded the behavioral pattern with systematicness as
routine within organizations.
Based on the rating results for each behavioral pattern, we formed
two indicators, the intensity and the variety of technological learning
routine. As in the case of the intensity of the technological learning
routine, it was measured as a combination of the above noted 34 be-
havioral patterns. The variety of the technological learning routine
refers to the opposite of the concentration degree in the use of tech-
nological learning routine during technology and product development
process. We measured the variety of technological learning routine with
the entropy index (Jacquemin and Berry, 1979) as follows:
n
n ⎛ IMPj ⎞ ⎛ ∑j IMPj ⎞ IMPj
Variety= ∑ ∑ ∑ IMP
⎜ ∑ IMPj ⎟ In ⎜ IMPj ⎟,
= 1, i = 1, 2, 3, …, n
i=1
j vergent validity. We evaluated discriminant validity by comparing the
⎝ j ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ i=1 j
The ambidexterity of technological learning routine. The ambidexterity
of technological learning routine is an integrative construct of the in-
tensity and the variety of technological learning routine, and therefore
balance ambidexterity and combined ambidexterity of technological
learning routine are operationalized on the basis of the instruments of
the intensity and the variety of technological learning routine
(Cao et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2014).
8
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990
Balance ambidexterity of technological learning routine. Balance am-
bidexterity of technological learning routine refers to the relative
magnitude of the intensity and the variety of technological learning
routine. Following previous treatments adapted by He and
Wong (2004) and Cao et al. (2009), balance ambidexterity of techno-
logical learning routine was measured by subtracting the absolute dif-
ference score between the intensity and the variety from 5. In so doing,
a higher value indicated greater balance ambidexterity of technological
learning routine.
Combined ambidexterity of technological learning routine. In line with
He and Wong (2004), Cao et al. (2009) and Wei et al. (2014), combined
ambidexterity of technological learning routine was operationalized by
computing the multiplicative interaction between the intensity and the
variety of technological learning routine. We mean-centered the in-
tensity and the variety of technological learning routine scales before
obtaining their product to mitigate the potential of multicollinearity.
Control variables. Five variables (firm size, firm age, industry type,
ownership and network centrality) were controlled to eliminate the
effects they might have had on innovation performance. Specifically,
firm size indicates that a firm possesses more resource and capability to
improve innovation performance (Acs and Audretsch, 1987), and it was
controlled and estimated by the log values of the number of employees.
Second, firm age, which may affect a firm's incentive to devote into
innovation (Sørensen and Stuart, 2000), was also treated as a control
variable. It was measured in years since a firm was established. Third,
following Wang et al. (2017), this study controlled for industry type by
introducing industry dummies, in which 0 indicated labor-intensive
industries and 1 indicated knowledge-intensive industries. Fourth, as
firms with state ownership may receive more government support and
leverage more resources for innovation (Piotroski and Zhang, 2014),
this study incorporated ownership and measured it by a dummy vari-
able, in which 0 indicated the presence of state ownership and 1 in-
dicated the absence of state ownership (Chen et al., 2018; Wang et al.,
2017). Finally, given the importance of network centrality to the ac-
quisition and assimilation of external knowledge and firm innovation
(Dong and Yang, 2016; Tsai et al., 2019), this study controlled for
network centrality with a four-item scale based on Wang (2007) and
Giuliani (2007). These items are as follows: (1) local firms often seek for
help from our firm when they need technical advices or technical
support; (2) most cluster firms are familiar with the technology level
and products of our firm; (3) it is easy for local firms to communicate
with our firm about technology or experience; (4) local firms often
communicate with each other about technology or experience through
our firm.
4. Results
4.1. Reliability and validity
Construct reliability was assessed with Cronbach's Alpha coefficient
and composite reliability (CR) measure. All constructs surpassed the
cut-off point of 0.7 for both the Cronbach's alpha value and the CR
value (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Convergent validity was verified
by examining factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE)
values (Hair et al., al.,2010). Most loadings of items were above the
recommended threshold of 0.70 (Gefen et al., 2000). All AVE values
exceeded 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), indicating adequate con-
squared AVE of a construct with the correlations between the construct
with other constructs(Chin, 1998; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As
Table 2 displays, all constructs had adequate discriminant validity be-
cause the square roots of AVE were greater than the corresponding
inter-construct correlations.
To minimize the effects of common method bias, we ensured the
respondents the anonymity when collecting data to eliminate socially
desirable answers (Podsakoff et al., al.,2003). In addition, the
J. Guo, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990

Table 2 variables were included to examine their influences on the dependent

Results of reliability and validity analysis. variable (Model 4 and Model 5). In addition, referring to Larsen (2016)
Construct Items Loadings AVE CR Cronbach's and Wang and Chen (2020), the empirical analyses are conducted with
alpha robust standard errors to control for heteroscedasticity.
Table 4 indicates the steps conducted to investigate the hypotheses.
Network centrality (NC) NC1 0.596 0.633 0.871 0.827
Model 1 just included the control variables and the moderators. We
NC2 0.812
NC3 0.851
added combined ambidexterity of technological learning routine in
NC4 0.891 model 2. Furthermore, we entered balance ambidexterity of technolo-
Knowledge tacitness (KT) KT1 0.831 0.623 0.866 0.827 gical learning routine in model 3. After introducing the interaction
KT2 0.878 between knowledge tacitness and the ambidexterity of technological
KT3 0.593
learning routine in model 4, we added the interaction of knowledge
KT4 0.823
Knowledge heterogeneity KH1 0.694 0.608 0.822 0.843 heterogeneity and the routine ambidexterity of technological learning
(KH) in model 5. To reduce potential multicollinearity, all interaction vari-
KH2 0.796 ables were mean-centered (Aiken and West, 1991). We calculated
KH3 0.841
variance inflation factors (VIFs) for each variable to check for potential
Innovation performance IP1 0.878 0.700 0.921 0.939
(IP)
multicollinearity. All VIF values ranged from 1.16 to 1.88, which were
IP2 0.796 below the threshold of 3.33 (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001),
IP3 0.836 indicating that multicollinearity was not a problem in our study.
IP4 0.810 The results presented that combined ambidexterity of technological
IP5 0.861
learning routine adds significant prediction for innovation performance
(β = 1.526, p < 0.001), whereas balance ambidexterity of technolo-
questionnaire was designed with reversed wording and changed item gical learning routine does not show significant relationship with in-
ordering to avoid the stylistic answers (Conway and Lance, 2010). novation performance. Thus, H1 is supported and H2 is not supported.
Further, we performed Harman's one-factor test to assess common The argument of Hypothesis 3 is that knowledge tacitness interacts
method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). A principal component analysis significantly with combined ambidexterity of technological learning
that incorporated all measurement items was conducted, and the ro- routine to influence innovation performance. The results supported this
tation sum of squared loadings for the largest factor explained 32.659% argument (β = 0.934, p < 0.01). According to Aiken and West (1991),
of the variance, indicating that common method bias was not a major we plotted the high and low levels of each variable (one standard de-
concern in the present study (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). viation above and below the mean). The plot (see Fig. 2) suggests that
the positive impact of combined ambidexterity of technological
learning routine on innovation performance is higher when knowledge
4.2. Hypotheses tests tacitness is high than when it is low.
Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported. Consistent with Hypothesis 4, the
Table 3 displays the mean and standard deviations and provides interaction between balance ambidexterity of technological learning
correlations of the variables. The results presents that combined am- routine and knowledge tacitness has a significantly positive relationship
bidexterity of technological learning routine is positively related with with innovation performance (β = 0.213, p < 0.05). The plot, pre-
innovation performance (r = 0.309, p < 0.01), while balance ambi- sented in Fig. 3, suggests that, while a higher level of balance ambi-
dexterity of technological learning routine is insignificantly and nega- dexterity of technological learning routine is associated with higher
tively correlated with innovation performance (r = −0.127). innovation performance, balance ambidexterity is likely to be more
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis and the moderated method effective in influencing innovation performance when knowledge ta-
(Baron and Kenny, 1986) were used to examine the relationship be- citness is higher. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is supported.
tween the ambidexterity of technological learning routine, knowledge As to Hypothesis 5a and 5b, the interaction effect of combined
tacitness and heterogeneity, and innovation performance. The hier- ambidexterity of technological learning routine and knowledge het-
archical feature allows the gradual establishment of separate, but re- erogeneity on innovation performance is negative and not significant.
lated, models that add more explanatory variables (Larsen, 2016). The Therefore, Hypothesis 5a and 5b are not supported. With Hypothesis 6,
test for moderation is the significance of the interaction between the the results showed that the interaction effects of balance ambidexterity
independent variable and the potential moderating variable (Baron and of technological learning routine and knowledge heterogeneity on in-
Kenny, 1986; Simmonds et al., 2019). Specifically, first, the dependent novation performance is not significant. Therefore, Hypotheses 6 is not
variable was regressed on control variables and moderating variables supported.
(Model 1). Second, the direct effects of the two independent variables
were tested on the dependent variable in Model 2 and Model 3. In the
third step, according to Baron and Kenny (1986)’s recommended pro-
cedure, the interactions of independent variables and moderating

Table 3
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Firm size 5.510 0.763 n.a

2 Firm age 18.230 11.639 0.187** n.a
3 Network centrality 4.515 1.005 0.317** 0.104 0.909
4 Knowledge tacitness 5.123 0.884 0.162* 0.179** 0.328** 0.807
5 Knowledge heterogeneity 3.665 1.108 −0.062 0.027 −0.207** −0.123 0.835
6 Combined ambidexterity of technological learning routine 0.092 0.259 −0.160* 0.027 0.000 0.041 0.163* n.a
7 Balance ambidexterity of technological learning routine 0.822 0.598 −0.103 −0.088 −0.019 −0.250** −0.051 0.132 n.a
8 Innovation performance 4.557 1.032 0.293** 0.259** 0.074 0.214** 0.458** 0.309** −0.127 0.870

Notes: The italic diagonal elements are the square root of the AVE values; n = 217. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

9
J. Guo, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990

Table 4
Results of regression analysis.
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

† † †
Constant −0.171(0.075)* −0.126(0.074) −0.133(0.075) −0.126(0.074) −0.116(0.076)
Industry type 0.305(0.140)* 0.229(0.132) † 0.246(0.135) † 0.267(0.131)* 0.265(0.131)*
Firm size 0.302(0.092)** 0.379(0.088)*** 0.371(0.089)*** 0.343(0.080)*** 0.346(0.077)***
Firm age 0.009(0.006) 0.010(0.006) † 0.010(0.006) † 0.007(0.005) 0.007(0.005)
Ownership 0.238(0.232) 0.156(0.233) 0.135(0.224) 0.151(0.216) 0.171(0.217)
Network Centrality −0.013(0.070) −0.025(0.067) −0.020(0.068) −0.059(0.070) −0.077(0.072)
Knowledge tacitness(KT) 0.180(0.073)* 0.175(0.071)* 0.151(0.073)* 0.114(0.073) 0.129(0.075) †
Knowledge heterogeneity(KH) 0.438(0.065)*** 0.403(0.061)*** 0.397(0.062)*** 0.378(0.061)*** 0.374(0.062)***
Combined ambidexterity of technological learning routine(CA) 1.021(0.239)*** 1.058(0.222)*** 1.480(0.249)*** 1.526(0.279)***
Balance ambidexterity of technological learning routine(BA) −0.111(0.080) 0.006(0.094) 0.046(0.109)
CA*KT 0.921(0.285)** 0.934(0.287)**
BA*KT 0.208(0.102)* 0.213(0.105)*
CA*KH −0.176(0.156)
BA*KH 0.070(0.122)
N 217 217 217 217 217
R2 0.409 0.469 0.473 0.507 0.509
F-values 23.66*** 26.99*** 25.52*** 22.23*** 19.70***

Notes: Robust standard errors reported in parentheses. n = 217. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

5. Discussion and implications performance.

5.1. Discussion and conclusion
This study applies an ambidexterity perspective to the performance
effect of technological learning routine and examines the moderating
effects of knowledge tacitness and knowledge heterogeneity on the
relationship between the ambidexterity of technological learning rou-
tine and innovation performance. Using a sample of 217 firms within
industrial clusters in China, the empirical findings reveal that combined
ambidexterity of technological learning routine positively influences
firm innovation performance, whereas the direct effect of balance am-
bidexterity on innovation performance is not significant. One possible
explanation is that most firms within industrial clusters do not possess
sufficient dynamic resource management capabilities (Sirmon et al.,
2011; Wei et al., 2014), which may affect the way firms reconfigure
resource portfolios to leverage the relative magnitude of the intensity
and the variety of technological learning routine for innovation and
hence influence the impact of the balance ambidexterity on innovation
The present study also sheds new light on in what circumstances
routine ambidexterity can be more influential. The findings indicate
that when knowledge embedded within product and process develop-
ment is more tacit, the role of both combined and balance ambi-
dexterity of technological learning routines would be more important to
firm innovation performance. However, the moderating effects of
knowledge heterogeneity on the relationship between combined or
balance ambidexterity of technological learning routine and innovation
performance are not supported. This can be explained as follows. On
one hand, knowledge heterogeneity may lead to mutual conflicts and
ambiguity in knowledge processing activities within organizations
(Tsai et al., 2014), and the adjustment of the relative magnitude be-
tween the intensity and the variety of technological learning routine is
likely to be more difficult. Firms within industrial clusters are lack of
abundant resources to deal with such adjustment when knowledge
heterogeneity is at a high level (Cao et al., 2009). Therefore, knowledge
heterogeneity may not significantly impact the relationship between
the balance dimension and innovation performance. On the other hand,

Fig. 2. Interaction plot of knowledge tacitness and combined ambidexterity of technological learning routine on innovation performance.

10
J. Guo, et al.
Fig. 3. Interaction plot of knowledge tacitness and balance ambidexterity of technological learning routine on innovation performance.
knowledge heterogeneity may result in intercommunication troubles,
decision disagreement or even debates (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2019),
and thus firms are likely to undertake differing featured technological
learning routines to suit for market and technology changes in a het-
erogeneous knowledge context (Guo et al., 2018). In this regard, the
link between the combined dimension and innovation performance may
be negatively but not significantly moderated by knowledge hetero-
geneity.
5.2. Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the literature as follows. First, this study
extends the understanding of technological learning routine by ap-
plying an ambidexterity perspective and addresses the performance
turn in routine research by studying routines empirically. In line with
Rothaermel and Alexandre (2009), we concur that the exploitation-
exploration lens is but one manifestation of organizational ambi-
dexterity and organizational ambidexterity can also be extended to
describe other organizational phenomenon. The present study applies
the ambidexterity perspective to depict a firm's ability to simulta-
neously pursue the intensity and the variety of technological learning
routine. The theoretical link and differentiation between the exploita-
tion-exploration lens and the intensity-variety lens are as follows. On
one hand, the intensity-variety lens is related to the exploitation-ex-
ploration lens in that both intensity and exploitation reflect variance
reduction while both variety and exploration indicate variance increase
as to learning activities within firms (March, 1991; Lavie et al., 2010).
On the other hand, the intensity-variety lens is to a certain extent dif-
ferent from the exploitation-exploration lens in that the former captures
the characteristics of organization process and behavioral patterns un-
derlying technological learning, whereas the latter focuses on the scale
and scope of knowledge created or acquired relative to a firm's existing
knowledge base (Lavie et al., 2010; Levinthal and March, 1993), ig-
noring the recurrent organization process of technological learning
within firms. The empirical results indicate that combined ambi-
dexterity of technological learning routine is critical to firm innovation
performance. This finding not only resonates with previous research
examining ambidexterity hypotheses in different contexts
(Lubatkin et al., 2006; Rothaermel and Alexandre, 2009; Sidhu et al.,
2007), but also answers the call to explore the performance effect of
11
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990
technological learning routine by providing greater operational content
for the theoretical construct (Becker, 2004; Cohen et al., 1996;
Hales and Tidd, 2009; Pavitt, 2002; Reynaud, 1998).
Second, this study contributes to reconciling the mixed findings
about whether routine ambidexterity facilitates or frustrates innovation
by examining the moderating roles of knowledge attributes in shaping
the ambidexterity-innovation performance relationship. Previous re-
search has postulated that theory on the contextual factors that affect
the ambidexterity–innovation performance relationship remains im-
poverished (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008; Simsek et al., 2009). Some
recent research examines how specific attributes of organizational and
environmental contexts can shape the relationship between ambi-
dexterity and subsequent performance (Cao et al., 2009; De Clercq
et al., 2013; Jansen et al., 2012; Rothaermel and Alexandre, 2009;
Wei et al., 2014). Since the outcomes of either the intensity or the
variety of technological learning routine are based on how easily
knowledge can be acquired, maintained, reactivated and integrated
(Argote et al., 2003; Guo et al., 2018), the specific attributes of
knowledge contexts should be one of the essential contingencies.
Nonetheless, the contingent roles of knowledge attributes are less ex-
plored in previous research. By addressing this issue, we find that firms
with high levels of knowledge tacitness achieve commensurately higher
innovation performance from both combined and balance ambi-
dexterity of technological learning routines. Such findings extend the
argument of Lee and Huang (2012) and Lin and Chang (2015) that
knowledge representation may have a crucial role in leveraging the
ambidexterity for innovation.
5.3. Managerial implications
Our findings have several practical implications. First, since the
balance ambidexterity of technological learning routine does not fa-
cilitate firm innovation performance directly, managers have to assess
carefully when and whether to carry out balance ambidexterity within
industrial clusters. However, the finding pertaining to the critical role
of combined ambidexterity of technological learning routine highlights
the need to take measures to improve the absolute magnitude of the
intensity and the variety of technological learning routine to increase
their complementary effects for innovation performance. In particular,
for cluster firms in developed countries, managers can deploy units that
J. Guo, et al.
are dedicated to conduct diverse technological learning routine and
separate them from those devoted to carry out intense technological
learning routine (Cao et al., 2009; Christensen, 1997; Tushman and
O'Reilly, 1996). On the contrary, for cluster firms in emerging econo-
mies, managers may use sequential attention or rhythmic pacing to shift
between the intensity and the variety of technological learning routine
to pursue the combined ambidexterity due to possible insufficiency in
resource stock (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997).
Second, the present study emphasizes the importance of knowledge
tacitness in conditioning the ambidexterity-innovation performance
relationship. Although the balance dimension does not significantly
influence firm innovation performance, knowledge tacitness still play a
complementary role in moderating the effect of balance ambidexterity.
As such, apart from environmental munificence (Cao et al., 2009), co-
ordination flexibility (Wei et al., 2014), resource munificence
(Jansen et al., 2012), absorptive capacity (Rothaermel and
Alexandre, 2009), and internal competitive environment (De Clercq
et al., 2013), managers should also attentively take into account the
level of knowledge tacitness embedded within their product and pro-
cess development, and leverage both the balance and the combined
dimension of the ambidexterity of technological learning routine for
higher innovation performance at high levels of knowledge tacitness.
5.4. Limitations and future directions
This study also has several limitations which suggest directions for
future research. First, the sample studied here is based in China as an
emerging economy. These sample firms may not possess a large stock of
resource as firms in developed countries do. The generalizability of our
findings should be examined with diverse samples from developed
countries in future research. Second, this study is designed in cross-
sectional nature, which cannot explicate how the contingent role of
knowledge attributes in shaping routine ambidexterity-innovation
performance relationship evolves over time. In this situation, there is a
compelling need to conduct longitudinal studies to explore how the
above relationship dynamically changes over time. Third, future re-
search exploring how other specific attributes of knowledge domain
may affect the performance effect of the ambidexterity of technological
learning routine can shed more light on ambidexterity research. Fourth,
prior research on ambidexterity has highlighted that the ambidexterity-
innovation performance link is contingent on organizational and en-
vironmental contexts (Cao et al., 2009; De Clercq et al., 2013;
Jansen et al., 2012; Rothaermel and Alexandre, 2009; Wei et al., 2014).
It is worthy of validating whether organizational and environmental
contexts attenuate or amplify the moderating effect of knowledge at-
tributes on the relationship between routine ambidexterity and in-
novation performance.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China [Grant no. 71672185]; the Youth Innovation
Promotion Association, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Grant no.
2017201]; the Major project of the National Social Science Fund of
China [Grant no. 17ZDA050]; the National Natural Science Foundation
of China [Grant no. 71772014]; and the Dean's Youth Fund of Institutes
of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Grant
no.Y7X1061Q01].
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jingjing Guo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Funding acquisition. Bin Guo: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization. Jianghua Zhou: Validation, Investigation, Resources,
12
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990
Data curation. Xiaobo Wu: Investigation, Supervision, Project admin-
istration.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119990.
References
Abebe, M.A., Angriawan, A., 2014. Organizational and competitive influences of ex-
ploration and exploitation activities in small firms. J. Bus. Res. 67 (3), 339–345.
Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., 1987. Innovation, market structure, and firm size. Rev. Econ.
Stat. 69 (4), 567–574.
Adler, P.S., Goldaftas, B., Levine, D.I., 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency: a case study of
model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Org. Sci. 10, 43–68.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Aime, F., Johenson, S., Ridge, J.W., Hill, A.D., 2010. The routine may be stable but the
advantage is not: competitive implications of key employee mobility. Strat. Manag. J.
31 (1), 75–87.
Amabile, T., 1996. Creativity in Context. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Amir, A., Ahad, Z.R., 2018. How market orientation contributes to innovation and market
performance: the roles of business analytics and flexible IT infrastructure. J. Bus.
Indus. Mark. 33 (7), 970–983.
Anand, V., Clark, M., Zellmer-Bruhn, M., 2003. Team knowledge structures: matching
task to information environment. J. Manag. Issues 15 (1), 15–33.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., Reagans, R., 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: an
integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Manage. Sci. 49 (4), 571–582.
Argyris, C., Schön, D.A., 1978. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective.
Reis 10 (77/78), 345–348.
Aroles, J., McLean, C., 2016. Rethinking stability and change in the study of organiza-
tional routines: difference and repetition in a newspaper-printing factory. Org. Sci. 27
(3), 535–550.
Arrow, K., 1962. The economic implications of learning by doing. Rev. Econ. Stud. 29 (3),
155–173.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173–1182.
Becker, M.C., 2004. Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Indus. Corp.
Change 13 (4), 643–678.
Becker, M.C., 2005. A framework for applying organizational routines in empirical re-
search: linking antecedents, characteristics and performance outcomes of recurrent
interaction patterns. Indus. Corp. Change 14 (5), 817–846.
Becker, M.C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 2005. Applying organizational
routines in understanding organizational change. Indus. Corp. Change 14 (5),
775–791.
van den Berg, H.A., 2013. Three shapes of organisational knowledge. J. Knowl. Manag. 17
(2), 159–174.
Berman, S.L., Down, J., Hill, C.W., 2002. Tacit knowledge as a source of competitive
advantage in the national basketball association. Acad. Manag. J. 45 (1), 13–31.
Betsch, T.S., Haberstroh, A., Glöckner, T.H., Fiedler, K., 2001. The effects of routine
strength on adaptation and information search in recurrent decision making. Org.
Behav. Human Decis. Processes 84 (1), 23–53.
Bierly III, P.E., Damanpour, F., Santoro, M.D., 2009. The application of external knowl-
edge: organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. J. Manag. Stud. 46
(3), 481–509.
Blümm, C. (2002) Die Bedeutung impliziten Wissens im Innovationsprozess, Gabler,
Wiesbaden.
Breschi, S., Malerba, F., 2001. The geography of innovation and economic clustering:
some introductory notes. Indus. Corp. Change 10 (4), 817–833.
Brislin, R., 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 1 (3),
185–216.
Brown, J., Duguid, P., 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: to-
ward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Org. Sci. 2 (1), 40–57.
Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., 1997. The art of continuous change: linking complexity
theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Adm. Sci. Q.
42, 1–34.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., Zhang, H., 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: di-
mensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Org. Sci. 20 (4), 1–16.
Carlile, P., 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in
new product development. Org. Sci. 13 (4), 442–455.
Carlile, P.R., Rebentisch, E.S., 2003. Into the black box: the knowledge transformation
cycle. Manage. Sci. 49 (9), 1180–1195.
Carlile, P.R., 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework
for managing knowledge across boundaries. Org. Sci. 15 (5), 555–568.
Carlo, J.L., Lyytinen, K., Rose, G.M., 2012. A knowledge-based model of radical in-
novation in small software firms. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 36 (3), 865–895.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Ruiz, F.J.A., Martínez-Caro, E., Garcia-Perez, A., 2019. Turning
heterogeneity into improved research outputs in international R&D teams. J. Bus.
Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.023.
Chen, J., Heng, C.S., Tan, B.C.Y., Lin, Z.J., 2018. The distinct signaling effects of R&D
subsidy and non-R&D subsidy on IPO performance of IT entrepreneurial firms in
J. Guo, et al.
China. Res. Policy 47 (1), 108–120.
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In:
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods For Business Research. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295–336.
Choo, C.W., Bontis, N., 2002. The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and
Organizational Knowledge. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Christensen, C.M., 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma. Harvard Business School Press,
Boston.
Cohen, M.D., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., Warglien, M., Winter, S.,
1996. Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: contemporary
research issues. Indus. Corp. Change 5 (3), 653–698.
Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 128–152.
Collinson, S., Wilson, D.C., 2006. Inertia in Japanese organizations: knowledge man-
agement routines and failure to innovate. Org. Stud. 27 (9), 1359–1388.
Conway, J.M., Lance, C.E., 2010. What reviewers should expect from authors regarding
common method bias in organizational research. J. Bus. Psychol. 25 (3), 325–334.
Cyert, R., March, J., 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Corsaro, D., Cantù, C., Tunisini, A., 2012. Actors' heterogeneity in innovation networks.
Indus. Mark. Manag. 41 (5), 780–789.
Cruz-González, J., López-Sáez, P., Navas-López, J.E., Delgado-Verde, M., 2015. Open
search strategies and firm performance: the different moderating role of technolo-
gical environmental dynamism. Technovation 35, 32–45.
De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N., Dimov, D., 2013. Shedding new light on the relationship
between contextual ambidexterity and firm performance: an investigation of internal
contingencies. Technovation 33 (4–5), 119–132.
Dekoulou, P., Dekoulou, P., Trivellas, P., Trivellas, P., 2017. Organizational structure,
innovation performance and customer relationship value in the Greek advertising and
media industry. J. Bus. Indus. Mark. 32 (3), 385–397.
Derbyshire, J., 2014. The impact of ambidexterity on enterprise performance: evidence
from 15 countries and 14 sectors. Technovation 34 (10), 574–581.
Diamantopoulos, A., Winklhofer, H., 2001. Index construction with formative indicators:
an alternative to scale development. J. Mark. Res. 38, 269–277.
Dong, J.Q., Yang, C.H., 2016. Being central is a double-edged sword: knowledge network
centrality and new product development in U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 113, 379–385.
Dosi, G., 1988. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. J. Econ.
Lit. 26 (3), 1120–1171.
Dougherty, D., 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms.
Org. Sci. 3 (2), 179–202.
Eisenhardt, K., Martin, J., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strat. Manag. J. 21
(10–11), 1105–1121.
Feldman, M.S., 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Org. Sci.
11 (6), 611–629.
Feldman, M.S., Pentland, B.T., 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a
source of flexibility and change. Adm. Sci. Q. 48 (1), 94–121.
Feldman, M.S., Pentland, B.T., D'Adderio, L., Lazaric, N., 2016. Beyond routines as things:
introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Org. Sci. 27 (3), 505–513.
Fernhaber, S.A., Patel, P.C., 2012. How do young firms manage product portfolio com-
plexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity. Strat. Manag. J. 33 (13),
1516–1539.
Figueiredo, P.N., 2003. Learning, capability accumulation and firms differences: evidence
from latecomer steel. Indus. Corp. Change 12 (3), 607–643.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
García-Muiña, F.E., González-Sánchez, R., 2017. Absorptive routines and international
patent performance. Org. Sci. 20 (2), 96–111.
Garud, R., Nayyar, P.R., 1994. Transformative capacity: continual structuring by inter-
temporal technology transfer. Strat. Manag. J. 15 (5), 365–385.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., Boudreau, M., 2000. Structural equation modeling and regression:
guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 7 (7), 1–78.
Gersick, C., Hackman, J., 1990. Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organ.
Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 47 (1), 65–97.
Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J., 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Manag. J. 47 (2), 209–226.
Giuliani, E., 2007. The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from
the wine industry. J. Econ. Geograph. 7 (2), 139–168.
Giuliani, E., Bell, M., 2005. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innova-
tion: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Res. Policy 34 (1), 47–68.
Glazer, R., 1991. Marketing in an information-intensive environment: strategic implica-
tions of knowledge as an asset. J. Mark. 55 (4), 1–19.
Grant, R.M., 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strat. Manag. J. 17,
109–122.
Grant, R.M., 2002. The knowledge-based view of the firm. In: Choo, C.W., Bontis, N.
(Eds.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational
Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Guo, J., Guo, B., Chen, X., Du, J., 2018. The impact of knowledge attributes on techno-
logical learning routine within industrial clusters. Int. J. Technol. Manage. 78 (3),
234–260.
Guo, B., Guo, J.J., 2011. Patterns of technological learning within the knowledge systems
of industrial clusters in emerging economies: evidence from China. Technovation 31
(2/3), 87–104.
Guo, J.J., Guo, B., 2013. How do innovation intermediaries facilitate knowledge spil-
lovers within industrial clusters? A knowledge-processing perspective. Asian J.
Technol. Innov. 21 (sup2), 31–49.
13
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990
Guo, J.J., Yin, Q.X., 2008. Empirical study on influential factors of inter-enterprises’ tacit
knowledge transfer effectiveness. Technol. Econ. 27 (7), 7–17.
Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., Shalley, C.E., 2006. The interplay between exploration and
exploitation. Acad. Manag. J. 49 (4), 693–706.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective. Pearson Education, New Jersey, NJ.
Hales, M., Tidd, J., 2009. The practice of routines and representations in design and
development. Indus. Corp. Change 18 (4), 551–574.
Harabi, N., 1997. Channels of r&d spillovers: an empirical investigation of Swiss firms.
Technovation 17 (11–12), 627–635.
Hargadon, A., Sutton, R.I., 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product
development firm. Adm. Sci. Q. 42 (4), 716–749.
He, Z.L., Wong, P.K., 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambi-
dexterity hypothesis. Org. Sci. 15, 481–494.
Hedlund, G., 1994. A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation.
Strat. Manag. J. 15 (S2), 73–90.
Heiman, B.A., Nickerson, J.A., 2004. Empirical evidence regarding the tension between
knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaborations. Manag. Decis.
Econ. 25 (6/7), 401–420.
Helfat, C., Peteraf, M.A., 2003. The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles.
Strat. Manag. J. 24 (10), 997–1010.
Howard-Grenville, J.A., 2005. The persistence of flexible organizational routines: the role
of agency and organizational context. Org. Sci. 16 (6), 618–636.
Huber, G., 1996. Organizational learning: a guide for executives in technology-critical
organizations. IJTM Spec. Pub. Unlearn. Learn. 11, 821–832.
Jacquemin, A., Berry, C., 1979. Entropy measure of diversification and corporate growth.
J. Ind. Econ. 27 (4), 359–369.
Jansen, J.J.P., Simsek, Z., Cao, Q., 2012. Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit
contexts: cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strat.
Manag. J. 33 (11), 1286–1303.
Kauppila, O.P., 2015. Alliance management capability and firm performance: using re-
source-based theory to look inside the process black box. Long. Range Plann. 48 (3),
151–167.
Kim, N., Im, S., Slater, S.F., 2013. Impact of knowledge type and strategic orientation on
new product creativity and advantage in high-technology firms. J. Prod. Innov.
Manag. 30 (1), 136–153.
Knott, A.M., 2003. The organizational routines factor market paradox. Strat. Manag. J. 24
(10), 929–943.
Kogut, B., Zander, U., 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology. Org. Sci. 3 (3), 383–397.
Koumakhov, R., Daoud, A., 2017. Routine and reflexivity: simonian cognitivism vs
practice approach. Indus. Corp. Change 26 (4), 727–743.
Lane, P.J., Koka, B.R., 2006. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and
rejuvenation of the construct. Acad. Manage. Rev. 31 (4), 833–863.
Lane, P.J., Koka, B.R., Pathak, S., 2006. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical
review and rejuvenation of the construct. Acad. Manage. Rev. 31 (4), 833–863.
Lane, P.J., Lubatkin, M., 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational
learning. Strat. Manag. J. 19 (5), 461–477.
Langlois, R.N., Robertson, P.L., 1996. Stop Crying Over Spilt knowledge: a Critical Look
At the Theory of Spillovers and Technical Change. Department of Economics,
University of Connecticut, Storrs-Mansfield, CT.
Larraneta, B., Zahra, S.A., Gonzalez, J.L.G., 2012. Enriching strategic variety in new
ventures through external knowledge. J. Bus. Ventur. 27 (4), 401–413.
Larsen, M.M., 2016. Failing to estimate the costs of offshoring: a study on process per-
formance. Int. Bus. Rev. 25 (1), 307–318.
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., Tushman, M.L., 2010. Exploration and exploitation within and
across organizations. Acad. Manag. Ann. 4 (1), 109–155.
Lee, C.S., Wong, K.Y., 2015. Development and validation of knowledge management
performance measurement constructs for small and medium enterprises. J. Knowl.
Manag. 19 (4), 711–734.
Lee, C.Y., Huang, Y.C., 2012. Knowledge stock, ambidextrous learning and firm perfor-
mance: evidence from technologically intensive industries. Manag. Dec. 50,
1096–1116.
Lee, C.Yu, Wu, H.L., Liu, C.Y., 2013. Contextual determinants of ambidextrous learning:
evidence from industrial firms in four industrialized countries. IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manage. 60 (3), 529–540.
Leonard-Barton, D., 1992. The factory as a learning laboratory. Sloan. Manage. Rev. 34
23-23.
Levinthal, D., March, J.G., 1993. The myopia of learning. Strat. Manag. J. 14 (S1),
95–112.
Lewin, A.Y., Massini, S., Peeters, C., 2011. Microfoundations of internal and external
absorptive capacity routines. Org. Sci. 22 (1), 81–98.
Lin, C., Chang, C.C., 2015. A patent-based study of the relationships among technological
portfolio, ambidextrous innovation, and firm performance. Technol. Anal. Strat.
Manag. 27 (10), 1193–1211.
Lin, H.E., McDonough, E.F., Lin, S.J., Lin, C.Y.Y., 2013. Managing the exploitation/ex-
ploration paradox: the role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity. J.
Prod. Innov. Manag. 30 (2), 262–278.
Liu, W., Atuahene-Gima, K., 2018. Enhancing product innovation performance in a
dysfunctional competitive environment: the roles of competitive strategies and
market-based assets. Indus. Mark. Manag. 73, 7–20.
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Yan, L., Veiga, J.F., 2006. Ambidexterity and performance in
small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral
integration. J. Manage. 32, 646–672.
March, J.G., Simon, H.A., 1958. Organizations. Wiley, NewYork.
March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Org. Sci. 2 (1),
J. Guo, et al.
71–87.
March, J.G., 1994. A Primer on Decision-making. Free Press, New York.
McEvily, S.K., Chakravarthy, B., 2002. The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: an
empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge. Strat. Manag. J.
23 (4), 285–305.
McIver, D., Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Lengnick-Hall, M.L., Ramachandran, I., 2013.
Understanding work and knowledge management from a knowledge-in-practice
perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 38 (4), 597–620.
Medlin, C.J., Törnroos, Jan-Åke, 2015. Exploring and exploiting network relationships to
commercialize technology: a biofuel case. Indus. Mark. Manag. 49, 42–52.
Mohr, J., Spekman, R., 1994. Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attri-
butes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strat. Manag. J.
15 (2), 135–152.
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. The
Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
National Bureau of Statistics of China (2017) China Statistical Yearbook 2017, China
Statistics Press, Beijing.
Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Org. Sci. 5 (1),
14–37.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynasties of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric Theory, 3ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
O'Cass, A., Heirati, N., Ngo, L.V., 2014. Achieving new product success via the syn-
chronization of exploration and exploitation across multiple levels and functional
areas. Indus. Mark. Manag. 43 (5), 862–872.
Oerlemans, L.A.G., Knoben, J., Pretorius, M.W., 2013. Alliance portfolio diversity, radical
and incremental innovation: the moderating role of technology management.
Technovation 33 (6–7), 234–246.
O'Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L., 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the
innovator's dilemma. Res. Organ. Behav. 28, 185–206.
Parmigiani, A., Howard-Grenville, J., 2011. Routines revisited: exploring the capabilities
and practice perspectives. Acad. Manag. Ann. 5 (1), 413–453.
Pavitt, K., 2002. Innovating routines in the business firm: what corporate tasks should
they be accomplishing. Indus. Corp. Change 11 (1), 117–133.
Pekovic, S., Pekovic, S., Rolland, S., Rolland, S., Gatignon, H., Gatignon, H., 2016.
Customer orientation and organizational innovation: the case of environmental
management practices. J. Bus. Indus. Mark. 31 (7), 835–848.
Pelled, L., Eisenhardt, K., Xin, K., 1999. Exploring the black box: an analysis of work
group diversity, conflict, and performance. Adm. Sci. Q. 44 (1), 1–3.
Peng, D.X., Schroeder, R.G., Shah, R., 2008. Linking routines to operations capabilities: a
new perspective. J. Oper. Manage. 26 (6), 730–748.
Pentland, B.T., 1995. Grammatical models of organizational processes. Org. Sci. 6,
541–556.
Pentland, B.T., 2003a. Sequential variety in work processes. Org. Sci. 14, 528–540.
Pentland, B.T., 2003b. Conceptualizing and measuring variety in organizational work
processes. Manage Sci 45, 425–443.
Pentland, B.T., Hrem, T., Hillison, D., 2011. The (N)Ever-Changing world: stability and
change in organizational routines. Org. Sci. 22 (6), 1369–1383.
Pentland, B., Reuter, H., 1994. Organizational routines as grammars of action. Adm. Sci.
Q. 39 (3), 484–510.
Pitt, M., McVaugh, J., 2008. Knowledge management for new product development. J.
Knowl. Manag. 12 (4), 101–116.
Piotroski, J.D., Zhang, T., 2014. Politicians and the ipo decision: the impact of impending
political promotions on ipo activity in china. Journal of Finance Economics 111,
111–136.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects. J Manage 12 (4), 531–544.
Polanyi, M., 1967. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY.
Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L., 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and
the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q. 41 (2),
116–145.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes,
and moderators. J. Manage. 34, 375–409.
Reed, R., DeFillippi, R.J., 1990. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable
competitive advantage. Acad. Manage. Rev. 15 (1), 88–102.
Reynaud, B., 1998. Les propriétés des routines: outils pragmatiques de décision et modes
de coordination collective. Sociol. Trav. 465–477.
Rodan, S., Galunic, D.C., 2004. More than network structure: how knowledge hetero-
geneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strat. Manag. J. 25
(6), 541–556.
Rothaermel, F.T., Alexandre, M.T., 2009. Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: the
moderating role of absorptive capacity. Org. Sci. 20 (4), 759–780.
Rumelt, R.P., 1995. Inertia and transformation. In: Montgomery, C. (Ed.), Resource-based
and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm—Towards a Synthesis. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp.
101–132.
Salvato, C., Rerup, C., 2011. Beyond collective entities: multilevel research on organi-
zational routines and capabilities. J. Manage. 37 (2), 468–490.
Schmickl, C., Kieser, A., 2008. How much do specialists have to learn from each other
when they jointly develop radical product innovations? Res. Policy 37, 473–491.
Sidhu, J., Commandeur, H.R., Volberda, H.W., 2007. The multifaceted nature of ex-
ploration and exploitation: value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innova-
tion. Org. Sci. 18, 20–38.
14
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990
Simmonds, L., Bellman, S., Kennedy, R., Nenycz-Thiel, M., Bogomolova, S., 2019.
Moderating effects of prior brand usage on visual attention to video advertising and
recall: an eye-tracking investigation. J. Bus. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2019.02.062.
Simon, H.A., 1947/1997. Administrative Behaviour. The Free Press, New York.
Simonin, B.L., 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alli-
ances. Strat. Manag. J. 20 (7), 595–623.
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J.A., 2009. Typology for aligning organizational ambi-
dexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. J. Manag. Stud. 46 (5),
864–894.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Gilbert, B.A., 2011. Resource orchestration to
create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth and life cycle effects. Journal of
Management 37 (5), 1390–1412.
Smith, K.G., Collins, C.J., Clark, K.D., 2005. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation
capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Acad.
Manag. J. 48 (2), 346–357.
Smith, W.K., Tushman, M.L., 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: a top management
model for managing innovation streams. Org. Sci. 16 (5), 522–536.
Solís-Molina, M., Hernández-Espallardo, M., Rodríguez-Orejuela, A., 2018. Performance
implications of organizational ambidexterity versus specialization in exploitation or
exploration: the role of absorptive capacity. J. Bus. Res. 91, 181–194.
Song, J., Wei, Y.S., Wang, R., 2015. Market orientation and innovation performance: the
moderating roles of firm ownership structures. Int. J. Res. Mark. 32 (3), 319–331.
Sørensen, J.B., Stuart, T.E., 2000. Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation.
Adm. Sci. Q. 45, 81–112.
Stettner, U., Lavie, D., 2014. Ambidexterity under scrutiny: exploration and exploitation
via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions. Strat. Manag. J. 35 (13),
1903–1929.
Szulanski, G., 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm. Strat. Manag. J. 17, 27–43.
Tsai, F.S., Gayle, S.B., Fang, S.C., Lin, J.L., 2014. Contingent contingency: knowledge
heterogeneity and new product development performance revisited. Asia Pac. J.
Manag. 31 (1), 149–169.
Tsai, F.S., 2018. Knowledge heterogeneity, social capital, and organizational innovation.
J. Org. Change Manag. 31 (2), 304–322.
Tsai, L.C., Zhang, R.H., Zhao, C.F., 2019. Political connections, network centrality and
firm innovation. Financ. Res. Lett. 28, 180–184.
Tushman, M.L., O'Reilly, C.A., 1996. The ambidextrous organization: managing evolu-
tionary and revolutionary change. Calif. Manage. Rev. 38 (4), 1–23.
Tyre, M.J., Orlikowski, W.J., 1996. The episodic process of learning by using. Int. J.
Technol. Manage. 11, 790–798.
Urgal, B., Quintas, M.A., Arevalo-Tome, R., 2013. Knowledge resources and innovation
performance: the mediation of innovation capability moderated by management
commitment. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 25 (5), 543–565.
Van Looy, B., Martens, T., Debackere, K., 2005. Organizing for continuous innovation: on
the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations. Creat. Innov. Manag. 14, 208–221.
Venkatraman, N., Lee, C.H., Iyer, B., 2007. Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: a
longitudinal test in the software sector. In: Unpublished Manuscript (earlier version
presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, 2005.
Walsh, J., Ungson, G., 1991. Organizational memory. Acad. Manage. Rev. 16 (1), 57–91.
Wang, E.T., Hu, H.F., Hu, P.J.H., 2013. Examining the role of information technology in
cultivating firms’ dynamic marketing capabilities. Inf. Manag. 50 (6), 336–343.
Wang, F., Chen, K.H., 2020. Do product imitation and innovation require different pat-
terns of organizational innovation? Evidence from Chinese firms. J. Bus. Res. 106,
60–74.
Wang, X.J., 2007. Knowledge network and competitive advantage of cluster firms. Ph.D.
thesis paper. Zhejiang University.
Wang, Y.B., Li, J.Z., Furman, J.L., 2017a. Firm performance and state innovation funding:
evidence from China's Innofund program. Res. Policy 46 (6), 1142–1161.
Wernerfelt, B., Montgomery, C.A., 1988. Tobin's q and the importance of focus in firm
performance. Am. Econ. Rev. 78, 246–251.
van Wijk, R., Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., 2012. How firms
shape knowledge to explore and exploit: a study of knowledge flows, knowledge
stocks and innovative performance across units. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 24 (9),
929–950.
Wei, Z., Yi, Y., Guo, H., 2014. Organizational learning ambidexterity, strategic flexibility,
and new product development. J. Product Innov. Manag. 31 (4), 832–847.
Winter, S.G., 2017. Pursuing the evolutionary agenda in economics and management
research. Cambridge J. Econ. 41 (3), 721–747.
Zahra, S.A., George, G., 2002. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and
extension. Acad. Manag. Rev. 27 (2), 185–203.
Zander, U., Kogut, B., 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of
organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Org. Sci. 6 (1), 76–92.
Zhang, M., Macpherson, A., Jones, O., 2006. Conceptualizing the learning process in
SMEs: improving innovation through external orientation. Int. Small Bus. J. 24 (3),
299–323.
Zhang, X., Bartol, K.M., 2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative
process engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 53 (1), 107–128.
Zheng, S.L., Zhang, W., Wu, X.B., Du, J., 2011. Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities
and innovation in networked environments. J. Knowl. Manag. 15 (6), 1035–1051.
Zheng, S.L., Li, H.P., Wu, X.B., 2013. Network resources and the innovation performance
Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Manag. Decis. 51 (6), 1207–1224.
Zollo, M., Reuer, J.J., Singh, H., 2002. Interorganizational routines and performance in
strategic alliances. Org. Sci. 13 (6), 701–713.
J. Guo, et al.
Jingjing Guo is an associate professor at Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese
Academy of Sciences and School of Public Policy and Management, University of Chinese
Academy of Sciences. Dr. Guo's research concentrates on topics such as patterns of
technological learning and knowledge flow, innovation management, and innovation
policy. She has published articles in journals such as Technovation, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, International Journal of Technology Management, Asian
Journal of Technology Innovation, and International Journal of Mobile Communications.
Bin Guo is a professor at School of Management, Zhejiang University. His research in-
terests mainly cover innovation management and strategy, learning and capability
building in catch-up. He has published articles in academic journals such as Research
Policy, Technovation, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, European
Management Journal, and International Journal of Technology Management.
15
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 155 (2020) 119990
Jianghua Zhou is an associate professor in the Business School, Beijing Normal University,
China. His research interests are mainly on innovation management and strategic man-
agement within the context of emerging markets, among others. He has published well
over 30 articles in major refereed journals in business and management.
Xiaobo Wu is the Qiushi Chair Professor of Strategy and Innovation Management, an
professor of School of Management, and Director of National Institute for Innovation
Management at Zhejiang University. He is also the Director of the Zhejiang University-
Cambridge University Joint Research center for Global Manufacturing and Innovation
Management, and a member of a number of governmental and professional bodies,
providing consultancy services for the industries. His research interests include managing
technological innovation, global manufacturing and competitive strategy. He has pub-
lished articles in journals such as International Journal of Technology Management, Asian
Journal of Technology Innovation, International Journal of Mobile Communications, etc.