Asia-Pacific Business Review

Volume IV, Number 2, April-June 2008

We Shape Future
PP. 3-13. ISSN: 0973-2470

The Four Types of Organizational Learning

and their Impact on Innovation
Annapoomima M. Subramanian"

The paper presents a learning model that explains the influence offour types oflearning (i) conceptualization (ii)
experimentation (iii) experience (iv) reflection learning, on the innovation performance offirms. Conceptualization and
experience learning represent the competency offirms in developing scientific research and technological experience.
Experimentation refers to the competency offirms to apply their scientific knowledge in practice for creating new technologies.
Reflection is the extent to which firms have the ability to relate their technological experience back to science and draw lessons
from it. Our results show that the competency offirms in conceptualization does not guarantee them valuable innovation. It is
only by the application ofscientific knowledge to the innovation process through experimentation and reflection that firms can
transform their scientific competency into valuable innovation. One important research implication from the study is that firms
need to be ambidextrous in experimentation and reflection learning as well as in using their experience learning in order to
generate valuable innovation.

Keywords: Conceptualization, Experimentation, Reflection, Ambidextrous.

Introduction

Evolutionary economics perceives organizations as
biological organisms that struggle and compete in hostile
environments (Nelson and Winter, 1982). Survival in a
dynamically accelerated marketplace requires these
organizations to be innovative, and learning becomes an
important process through which organizations generate
valuable innovation. In highly technical industries, a
growing element of a firm's innovation strategy involves
developing competency in both science and technology.
Researchers belonging to one stream of literature that
embraces competency in science have provided evidence
that basic science research stimulates technological
innovation (Jaffe and Trajtenberg, 1996, Henderson and
Cockburn, 1994, Zucker and Darby, 1996). The general
tenet of this literature is that scientific ideas arising from
basic science are helpful in generating valuable
innovation. For example, Jaffe (1989) finds a positive
relationship between university research expenditure and
local patenting rates.
The other stream of research embracing technological
experience claims that it is the tacit knowledge gained
through the process of technological innovation which
enhances the value of innovation. The adaptive process
of learning (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), trial and error
learning (Van de Ven, 1992, March and Olsen, 1976),
learning by doing (Von Hippel and Tyre, 1995) and
technological trajectories (Rosenberg, 1982) are good
examples of this branch of research. Scholars have also
empirically tested the importance offirms experimenting
with novel, emerging and pioneering technologies so as
to come up with breakthrough inventions (Ahuja and
Lampert, 200 1).
The recent findings of Gittelman and Kogut (2003)
connect these two streams by concluding that the
competency of firms in generating scientific ideas does
not lead them to create valuable innovation. While
scientific research can become useful inputs for both
scientific and technology output, it is through application
of science to technological innovation process that firms
can generate valuable innovation. They further show that
high impact innovations build heavily upon scientific
literature. Therefore, it is imperative for firms to bridge
the gap between science and technology to generate
valuable innovation. While their research posits that it is
not science itself but the application of science that
enhances the value of innovation, our study tests this
relationship.
In testing the relationship we build on the organizational
learning model proposed by Raelin (1997), which
describes the four types oflearning that are fundamental
to knowledge building. They are (i) conceptualization (ii)
experimentation (iii) experience and (iv) reflection. We
argue that each type of learning has its independent

'Division of Engineering & Technology Management, National University of Singapore, Block E3A, # 04-11, 7,Engineering Drive 1,Singapore-117574
.E-mail: anna.poornima@gmail.com
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
influence on the value of innovation, and that the
relevance between each type of learning depends on the
interplay between theory and practice. Theory is referred
to the science underlying the technological innovation
and practice is related to the process of technological
innovation. Conceptualization learning is the extent to
which firms develop scientific competency (by
theorizing) necessary for technological innovation.
Experimentation learning is the extent to which firms
experiment their scientific knowledge in the
technological innovation process. Experience is the
extent to which firms develop competency by learning
through innovating (by practicing). Reflection learning is
the extent to which firms develop competency to relate
their practical technological experience back to science
and draw lessons from it in order to improve the value of
innovation. Experimentation and reflection signify the
competency offirms in bridging theory and practice.
The influence of the four types oflearning on the value of
innovation is tested using panel data of 127
biotechnology firms and their patents issued between
1980-200I. The dependent variable viz. the value of a
firm's innovation is gauged using the forward citation
Conceptualization
Scientific research
Experimentation
Technology innovation
Figure I: Four types of learning that are essential for valuable technological innovation
Conceptualization Learning
Conceptualization provides a common language that
helps in illuminating and describing actions (Raelin,
1997). In essence, conceptualization is trying to
understand why events occur, i.e. the acquisition of
knowledge related to know-why (Kim, 1993).
Conceptualization occurs at all levels. At the individual
level, people as cognitive creatures think about the world
before experiencing it. In conducting their thought
processes, people order their world with beliefs about
Asia-Pacific Business Review
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
counts of its patents. Conceptualization learning is
captured using the number of scientific papers published
by the firm. Experimentation learning is measured using
the references to non-patent literature made by the firm in
its pioneering patents. Reflection learning is measured
using the number of non-patent references in non-
pioneering patents. Since the number ofpatents issued to
a firm represents the firm's hands on experience in the
innovation process, it is used in gauging the experience
learning.
Learning and the Value ofInnovation
This section develops the research model in Figure 1,
which represents the four types of learning viz.
conceptualization, experimentation, reflection and
experience that are essential for firms to generate
valuable innovation. Conceptualization and experience
correspond to learning emphasized by the two streams of
research mentioned in the introduction section.
Reflection and experimentation signify dimensions that
bridge the gap between scientific and technological
domains.
Reflection
Experience
cause and effect relationships, which is guided by
socialization, education, etc. In highly technological
innovation, conceptual learning at the firm level means
developing competency in science that forms the
foundation for innovation. Scientific theories provide a
basis of why phenomena occurs, thus providing a source
for predicting untried experiments. It also provides a base
to tackle new and different problems in different
contexts. Scientific theories help researchers in actively
Volume IV. Number 2, April - June 2008
experimenting and reflecting upon their practical
innovation. Scientific research also provides a basis in
understanding the causal relationship between
technological components before experimenting, thus
reducing the combinatorial search pace of inventors by
eliminating fruitless avenues (Nelson, 1982).
In R&D process, even though firms do not get everything
right the first time, they do attempt to anticipate and
correct as many problems before embarking on the R&D
process. This process is also termed as learning before
doing (Pisano, 1994), for which knowledge gained
through scientific theories is a reliable source. The notion
that scientific research stimulates valuable technological
innovation is long established as far back as Adam Smith
(Fleming and Sorenson, 1996). A series of studies by
Zucker et al. (1998, 2001 and 2002) identifies the
significance of star scientists (mostly from academic
science) on the innovation performance of firms, again
reiterating the importance of conceptual learning.
Science intensity has been observed to be an important
predictor of value of innovation (Gittelman and Kogut,
2003). Firms that are competent in conceptualization
have better chance ofincreasing the scientific intensity of
their innovations and hence their value. Innovation that
Hypothesis 1: The value 0.[innovation ofafirm is related to its conceptualization learning in a curvilinear
(inverted u-shaped) manner.
Experimentation Learning
While conceptualization provides a foundation for
understanding events in practice, too much reliance on
conceptualleaming has serious limitations in explaining
real-world phenomena. According to Polyani (1966),
most of the real life problems are not sufficiently
coherent to be conceptualized as a theory. Hence, it is
mandatory that learning accrued through
conceptualization is tested in practice. The process of
trying out abstract theories in practice is called as
experimentation (Rae lin, 1997). Quite often
experimentation plays a vital role in resolving the
dissonance between theory and practice. Argyris and
Schon (1974) refer to this dissonance as the
inconsistency between 'espoused theory' and 'theory in
use'. Espoused theory is the abstract understanding
obtained through conceptualization. Espoused theory
may not be directly applicable in practice and it is
through experimentation and alteration that they are
changed into theory in use. Hence, conceptual learning is
converted into valuable knowledge in practice through
experimentation.
In technological innovation, scientific ideas are not
ready-made inputs for valuable innovation (Gittelman
© Asia-Pacific institute ofManagement, New Delhi
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
involves tightly coupled components requires adept
skills in background theory so as to ease the knowledge
search process (Fleming and Sorenson, 2004). It is
through developing competency in science that firms can
embark on such rugged landscaped innovation that are of
high value.
While the above arguments explicate the immediate
benefits of conceptualization for firms, science
competency can potentially hamper a firm's ability to
generate valuable innovation. One of the widely
criticized reason is that conceptualization can be too
abstract for it to be translated into practice. Strongly
grounded theoretical knowledge and assumptions can
become a trap for a firm's innovative capacity by
preventing it from experimenting new avenues.
Excellent scientific ability may have strong negative
impact on the value of innovation if a smooth knowledge
transfer between science and innovation is not carried out
(GittelmanandKogut,2003). T h us, w h i I e
conceptualization provides a strong basis for improved
technological innovation, it can also result in rigid
cognitive maps that can have negative impact on the
value of innovation. These arguments suggest that:
and Kogut, 2003).While scientific research can be
tailored to be useful inputs for both scientific output and
technology output; invertors of firms tend to utilize their
scientific competency in just producing more scientific
publication so as to gain reputation in the community. But
it has been shown that innovations that draw extensively
on scientific ideas are valuable. Hence, apart from using
the scientific competency for basic research, firms need
to be efficient in transferring their scientific competency
into workable ideas for innovation. A smooth transfer of
knowledge from espoused scientific theories to valuable
innovation requires firms to be skilled in
experimentation learning. In fact, experimentation can
help firms to overcome the learning traps in other types of
learning. One such trap is the familiarity trap that affects
firms that totally rely on learning from technological
innovation experience, making them ineffective in
managing disruptive innovations (Levinthal and March,
2003, Christensen, 1997). Through experimentation of
scientific ideas, firms can bring about novel innovations
that are more valuable.
Despite the immediate benefits of experimentation, over
experimentation can also obstruct firms in creating
valuable innovation. Experimentation by a firm results in
exploration ofnew ideas that the firm is not familiar with.
This results in knowledge search along unfamiliar
trajectories (Fleming and Sorenson, 2004).
Experimentation with unfamiliar ideas often comes with
Hypothesis 2 : The value ofinnovation ofa firm is related to its experimentation learning in a curvilinear
(inverted u-shaped) manner.
Experience Learning
The extent of performance improvement through
learning by repetition of task was first demonstrated in
production environment (Yelle, 1979). Similar
argument was extended to technological domain (Stalk et
aI., 1990). Cohen and Levinthal (1990) recognize this as
cycle of learning. They explain that experience with a
technology results in enhanced competence, which in
tum fosters usage and eventually increases experience
again. Hence through learning from experience, firms
Hypothesis 3: The value ofinnovation ofa firm is related to its experience learning in a curvilinear
(inverted u-shaped) manner.
Reflection Learning
The process ofinquiry into practical experiences in order to
relate it to cohesive theory for constructing meaning and
explaining is called as reflection (Raelin, 1997). Viljoen et
al. (1990) claim that many skilled practitioners are unable
to develop a cohesive theory and explanation oftheir work.
However, practitioners who are good at reflection learning
are capable ofreasoning out what they have performed and
observed which can in turn shape their actions for better
outcome (Raelin, 1997).
In technological innovation, it is imperative that firms are
able to relate their innovation process back to theory for
three reasons: (a) legitimacy, (b) absorptive capacity and
(c) enhancement. First, although tacit experience helps the
firms in generating valuable innovation, it is equally
important that firms are also able to externalize their tacit
knowledge and demonstrate the legitimacy of their
innovation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Scientific
theories and jargons are legitimate tools that help in the
process of externalization. Second, reflection learning can
help firms to overcome maturity trap and develop
capability to work on emerging technologies. Maturity trap
is the tendency to work on established technologies that are
well known and understood rather than working on
emerging technologies that are relatively new (Ahuja and
Lampert, 2001). Since emerging technologies are recently
developed innovations, if firms have the capability in
Hypothesis 4: The value ofinnovation ofa firm is related to its reflection learning in a curvilinear
(inverted u-shaped) manner.
Asia-Pacific Business Review
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
the risks of confusion and information overload that
might impair the ability of firms in creating valuable
innovation (Levinthal and March, 2003). These
arguments suggest that
become competent in the respective technological
domain that enhances the value of their innovation. But
when firms rely extensively on learning from experience,
it can also trap them in temporal, spatial and failure
myopia that eventually deteriorates the value of their
innovation (Levinthal and March, 1993). Since a number
of studies have reiterated the benefits and drawbacks of
learning by doing (Hippel and Tyre, 1995), we offer the
following hypothesis as a validation ofthe argument.
relating these innovations back to science, they have better
absorptive capacity to work on such emerging
technologies and develop them further. Third, when firms
are able to relate their technological innovation experience
back to science, they can overcome propinquity trap and
use their knowledge in established scientific theories to
enhance their innovation. Propinquity trap is the
propensity to search for solutions in the neighborhood of
existing solutions (Ahuja and Lampert, 2001). Firms
relying only on experience tend to become a prey for
propinquity trap. When firms are good in reflecting
technology innovation experience back to science, their
scope of knowledge search is widened. Thus, reflection
learning helps firms in using their scientific knowledge for
improving emerging technologies more effectively.
While reflection learning has the above benefits, it also
comes with a cost that can prevent firms from coming up
with valuable innovation. As explained by Argyris and
Schon (1974), there exists dissonance between 'espoused
theory' and 'theory in use'. Assumptions underlying
espoused theories need to be challenged and updated
through trial and error so as to make it fit for applying in
practical situations. In the absence of such an endeavor,
reflection learning can misguide inventors by affecting
their decision through their tacit theoretical knowledge.
These arguments suggest that
Volume IV, Number 2. April - June 2008
Research Methodology
Sample and Data Selection
Patenting activities of global biotechnology firms are
used in testing the hypotheses. Restricting our scope to
patent data has several limitations such as (a) not all
companies have same propensity to patent (b) firms can
limit their patents only to most successful innovations
etc. In spite of the above limitations patent data has been
widely used in testing the importance of science to
innovation (Fleming and Sorenson, 2004, Gittelman and
Kogut, 2003, Zucker et al., 2002). The data collection
was done in two phases. In the first phase, firms from
global biotechnology industry were identified using
Recap (Recombinant Capital) database. Recap database
provides a comprehensive list of biotech companies
worldwide along with their alliance, valuation and
clinical trials information. For our study we chose biotech
firmsfrom all over the world that have formed alliance with
at least one university during the year 1990-2000. Since
academic science is one of the main attractions for these
firms in forming alliance with university, a sample from
this set was perceived to be most appropriate for our study
that relates science and innovation. The alliances were
restricted to 1990-2000, because this was the period that
the industry witnessed maximum number of university
alliances.265 firms were identified in the first phase. In the
second phase, we collected the patent data of these firms
issued yearly, between 1980-2001. Patent related
information was collected from NUS patent database,
which contains all US patents issued between 1976-2004.
Correspondingyear wise financial data of these firms were
also collected from Compustat global. Filtering those firms
that did not have patent or financial data, our final sample
size was 127 firms. To assess ifthe value ofthe innovation
is driven by network extemalities due to university
alliances, robustness check was conducted to test the effect
of the independent variables on dependent variable,
controlling for the alliances of these firms. The results
show that restricting our scope to these of firms with
alliance need not affect the generalizability of the
findings.
Variable Definition
Value ofthe Innovation
Value of the innovation was measured using the number
of citation that a patent receives following its grant date.
According to patent law each patent must cite previous
patents that relate closely to its technology. Research
demonstrates that the number of citation that a patent
receives is related to its technological importance and
© Asia-Pacific Institute ofManagement, New Delhi
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
economic value (Trajtenberg, 1990 and Albert et al,
1991, Hall, Jaffe and Trajtenberg, 2000).
Independent Variable
The independent variables and some of the control
variables described below are based on the focal firm's
patenting history in the period before the year that the
dependent variable was observed. Thus the dependent
variables and independent variables are based on
different sets ofpatents.
Conceptualization Learning
For this variable we needed to develop a measure that
taps into the extent to which firms are competent in
scientific theories underlying technological innovation.
We computed this using the count of scientific
publications made by a firm in a year. Publication count is
used in prior research to measure scientific competency
of firms (Gittelman and Kogut, 2003). Web of science
that provides access to peer reviewed scientific
publication was used in measuring this variable.
Experimentation Learning
For this variable we needed to develop a measure that
captures the extent to which firms are competent in
experimenting scientific theories for their novel
technological innovation. We based this measure on the
number of non-patent references made by a firm in its
pioneering patents. Pioneering patents are those that do
not cite any other patents (Ahuja and Lampert, 2001).
Since they do not cite any patents, it indicates that they
have no discemable technological antecedents. It has
been observed by Fleming and Sorenson (2004) that 69%
of non patent references are from peer reviewed scientific
journals. Hence when a firm uses science in coming up
with pioneering patents, it represents its capability in
experimenting science to come up with a new
technological innovation that is original.
Experience Learning
For this variable we needed to develop a measure that
gauges the extent to which firm learns from its prior
experience. Number ofpatents issued to a firm represents
the firms' practical hands on experience with the
innovation process. Hence this was used as a proxy in
capturing firms' experience learning. Similar to other
independent variables, this variable was also measured
based on the number ofpatents issued to a firm in the year
previous to that ofobserved dependent variable patent.
Reflection Learning
For this variable we needed to develop a measure that
evaluates the extent to which firms are competent in
relating their technological innovation experience back
to science and draw lessons from it. Webased this measure
on the number of non-patentedreferences in non-pioneering
patentsof a firm.Non-pioneeringtechnologiesare those that
have technologicalantecedents (Ahuja and Lampert, 2001).
Thesepatentshave prior technologicallineageand they have
citations to those patents on which they are built on. Since
these technologies have been in practice for sometime, if a
firm uses science to come up with such patents, it represents
the firm's capability to relate the practical innovation
experience back to science for further improving the
technology. Hence this was used as a proxy to measure
reflectionlearning.
ControlVariables
Weincludedother controlvariablesboth at firm levelas well
as patent level.These variables include R&D intensity, firm
sizeas measuredby log of employees,firmage, totalnumber
of patents issuedto a firm in the focal year,number of claims
and age of the patents. In all the models we included the
unobserved heterogeneity control variable, value of the
patentin the previousyear. Sincefrequency ofpatenting and
citationcan vary across technology class defines by United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO), we used
dummy variables to reflect each class that cover
biotechnology sector. For each observation, these dummy
variablesreflecta firm'sparticipationor non-participationin
that class in the observed year. Control variables for total
number of patents, number of claims, age of the patent and
technology class are based on time period t, while the other
controlvariablesare basedon timeperiodTable-1.
ModelSpecification andResults
Sincethe dependentvariable is forward citationcount, count
model would be more appropriate for our study. Poisson
model is a frequently used count model (Gittelman and
Kogut, 2003). But since patent data can exhibit over
dispersion, we used negative binomial model that is best
suited for estimating over dispersed parameter and for
providing correct standard errors (Cameron and Trivedi,
1998).
Asia-Pacific Business Review
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
Table-I and Table-2 provides descriptive stanstics and
correlation among the variables. The standard deviations
reveal that there is huge difference between firms in the
variables of interest. The Model-l in Table-3 presents the
results for all the control variables. Every model reported in
Table-3 includesdurnmyvariables for eachtechnologyclass,
but their coefficients are not reported. All the control
variables turned out to be significant in model-l except for
firm size, R&D intensity and number of claims. Model-2
includes variables of the four hypothesized effects without
the squaredterms. Conceptualizationand reflectionleaming
coefficients are insignificant, but experimentation learning
has significant positive influence on value of innovation.
However, experience learning turned out to have negative
impacton the value of innovation.Exceptforthe significance
level of few variables, most of the control variables had
similarinfluenceon the dependent variable as that of Model-
1. Model-3 includes all the four squared terms to test the
possibility of curvilinearity. The coefficients of both
conceptualization learning and conceptualization learning
squared are insignificantsuggesting that conceptuallearning
has no relationship with the value of innovation. Hence
hypothesis-l is rejected. But experimentation, reflection
learningand both their squared terms are significantwith the
predicted sign, thus providing support for hypotheses 2 and
4. However, the coefficient of experience learning is
negatively significant and its squared term is positively
significant suggesting a u-shaped curvilinear relationship,
while the hypothesis predicted inverted u-shaped
relationship with the value of the innovation. Thus
hypothesis-3isrejected.
Sincethe samplefirms forour studywere chosenfrom Recap
databasethat had formed alliancewith at leastone university,
few may contend that the above relationships hold true
because of network externality effects caused by the
alliances. In order to check the robustness of our results, we
tested the hypothesized relationship controlling for the
alliance ofthese firms in Model-4. Apart from including the
number of alliances that the focal fum had with universities,
we also controlled for the number of alliances that the focal
firmhad with other firms.The results aftercontrollingfor the
alliances are quite similar to that ofmodel-3, suggesting
that the hypothesized relationship can be generalized.
Model-5 presents the hypothesized relationships after
dropping the conceptualization learning variable that
turned out to be consistently insignificant. The results of
Model-5 are consistent with that ofmodel-3 and 4 except
for a change in significance level of experience learning
coefficient.
The above results provide support for predictions in
hypotheses 2 and 4, but do not provide evidence in
support ofhypotheses 1and 3.
Volume IV, Number 2, April - June 2008
Discussion and Conclusion
The results demonstrate that conceptualization learning
does not have any significant influence on the value of
innovation. The result reiterates the conclusion drawn by
Gittelman and Kogut (2003) that the competency offirms
in generating good science does not guarantee them
valuable innovation. Present study follows their
contention that only through skillful application of
science in their innovation process can the firms
transform their scientific capability into valuable
technological innovation. We contribute to the
innovation literature by furthering their work and
showing the learning process through which an effective
transformation of knowledge from scientific to
technological domain can be carried out. The strong
evidence of the inverted u-shaped relationships of
experimentation and reflection learning with the value of
innovation in fact suggest the potential and the limits of
the bridging process between scientific ideas and
technological innovation. These results provide support
to our argument that through experimentation and
reflection learning" firms can overcome the myopia of
learning in good science and effectively bridge the gap
that exists between scientific and technological domain.
However, in the long run, experimentation and reflection
learning can be detrimental for the value ofinnovation.
In contrast, the effect of experience learning on valuable
innovation exhibits a u-shaped relationship. Experience
learning appears to be a drawback initially, most
probably because of the trial and error practice in the
innovation process leading to new mistakes and
problems. However, in the long run when firms
increasingly gain more experience in problem solving,
experience learning can be very useful for generating
valuable innovation.
Therefore, in the bridging process between science and
technological innovation, firms need to maintain a
balance among the different types of learning. This
reiterates the importance of ambidexterity in the
organizational learning literature (He and Wong, 2004).
Our study also extends the work of Ahuja and Lampert
(2001) that explains how organizations need to try out
novel, pioneering and emerging technologies in order to
overcome learning traps. While their study highlights the
importance ofinnovating on such technologies, our study
sheds light on the competence required by the firms to
develop these valuable innovations.
The present paper has several important implications for
managerial practice. Firstly, rather than focusing on a
single domain of scientific or technological knowledge,
© Asia-Pacific Institute ofManagement. New Delhi
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
firms need to nurture inventors who are competent in
bridging theory and practice. Secondly, even if some
firms do not have the luxury of investing in basic
research, these firms can encourage their inventors to be
closely connected to the open science community to
benefit from knowledge spillover that can be applied to
their innovation process. Thirdly, firms need to align the
decision about organizational learning with their
technology strategy. In uncertain situations firms tend to
work on familiar technologies rather than risking
themselves for breakthrough innovations. Under such
circumstances, experience learning can be consistently
beneficial. On the contrary, firms attempting for radical
or disruptive innovations that require deviation from
some of the fundamental concepts can spend more
resources on experimentation learning. Similarly
emerging technologies require firms to be competent in
reflection learning.
Limitations and Future Research
This research is subject to the following limitations: First
is the limitation pertaining to patent data which is
described in the methodology section. Second, in
measuring the application of science, count of all non-
patent references were taken into consideration. A more
appropriate measure would have been to consider only
citations to scientific publications. However, this
limitation is to some extent mitigated by the observation
of Fleming and Sorenson (2004). They show that
majority of the non-patent references are citations to
scientific publications.
The proposed learning model for creating valuable
innovation has created a few avenues for future research.
One possible research topic is to understand the detailed
process through which experimentation and reflection
learning are used respectively in transferring scientific
knowledge to technological innovation. A recent study
that may fall under this branch ofresearch is the work by
Fleming and Sorenson (2004). Their research has shown
that science enhances technological innovation by
facilitating the inventors in their knowledge search
process. Furthermore, they explain that the extent to
which science enhances the effectiveness ofsearch varies
systematically across applications, depending on the
coupling of technological components involved in the
innovation. Certainly, future studies can explore other
means through which the experimentation and reflection
learning can be used in transforming scientific
knowledge to valuable technological innovation. This
would include avenues such as investigating the extent to
which experimentation and reflection learning can help
firms to span both geographical and technological
boundary of knowledge spillover. Since scientific
community follows the idea of open science, firms that
are competent in applying science to innovation may not
be constrained by the technical distance and the
geographical location in benefiting from knowledge
spillover. Similarly, competency in the application of
science to innovation can beget the advantage of cross
pollination of ideas, which is helpful for valuable
innovation.
References
~huja, G and Lampert, C. M. (2001), "Entrepreneurship
IIIthe large corporation: A longitudinal study of how
established firms create breakthrough inventions."
Strategic ManagementJournal, Vol. 22, pp. 521-543.
Albert, M.,Avery, D., Narin, F. and McAllister, P.(1991),
"Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of
industrial important patents." Research Policy, Vol. 20, pp.
251-259.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A. (1974), Theory in practice:
Increasing professional effectiveness,San Francisco,
CAJossey-Bass.
Cameron,A. C. and Trivedi, P.(1998),Regressionanalysisof
countdata,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK
Cohen, W. and Levintha1, D. (1990),"Absorptivecapacity:A
new perspective on learningand innovation." Administrative
ScienceQuarterly, Vo1.35,pp.128-152.
Fleming, L. and Sorenson, O. (2004), "Science as a map in
technological search." Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
25,pp.909-928.
Gittelman, M and Kogut, B. (2003), "Does science lead to
valuable knowledge: Biotechnology firms and the
evolutionarylogicofcitationpatterns?"ManagementScience,
Vol. 49,pp. 366-382.
Hall, 8., Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, M. (2000), "Market value
andpatentcitations: a firstlook,"NBERworkingpaper7741.
He,Z.L.andWong,PK (2004),"Explorationvs.Exploitation:
An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis."
Organization Science,Vol. 15,pp.81-494.
Henderson, R. and Cockburn, I. (1994), "Measuring
competence?" Exploring finn effects in drug discovery.
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 63-84.
Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, M. (1996), "Flows of
Asia-Pacific Business Review
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
knowledge from universities and federal labs: Modeling
the flow of patent citations over time and across
institutional and geographic boundaries." Proceedings of
the National Academy Sciences, Vol. 93, pp. 12671-
12677.
Jaffe, A. (1989), "Real effects of academic research."
American Economic Review, Vol. 79,pp. 957-970.
Kim, D. H. (1993), "The link between individual and
organizational learning." Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 35, pp. 37-50.
Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993), "The myopia of
learning." Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp.
95-112.
March, J. G. and Olsen, 1.P. (1976), "Organizational
learning and the ambiguity of the past, in Ambiguity and
choice in organizations," Bergen: Universitetsforlaget,
pp.54-69.
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982),An evolutionary theory
of economic change, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
Nonaka, I and Takeuchi. (1995), The knowledge creating
company, Oxford University Press, New York
Pisano, G. P. (1994), "Knowledge, Integration and the
locus of learning: An empirical analysis of process
development." Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15,
pp.85-100.
Polanyi, M. (1966), The tacit dimension, Garden City,
NY.
Raelin, 1. A. (1997), "A Model of work based learning."
Organization Science, Vol. 8, pp. 563-578.
Rosenberg, N. (1982), Inside the black box, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Stalk, G. and Hout, 1. M. (1990), Competing against
time, The Free Press, New York, NY
Trajtenberg, M. (1990), "A penny for your quotes: Patent
citations on the value of innovations." Rand Journal of
Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 172-187.
Van de Ven,A. H. and Polley, D. (1992), "Learning While
Innovating." Organization Science, Vol. 3, pp. 92-116
Viljoen, J., Holt, D. and Petzall, S. (1990), "The MBA
Volume IV, Number 2, April - June 2008
experience: Participants entry level conception of
management." Management Education and
Development. Vol. 21, pp. 1-12.
Von Hippel, E. and Tyre, M. (1995), "How the learning
by doing is done: Problem identification in novel process
equipment." Research Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 1-12.
Yelle, L.E. (1979), "The learning curve: Historical
review and comprehensive survey." Decision Science.
Vol. 10, pp. 302-208.
Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R. and Armstrong, 1. (2002),
"Commercializing knowledge: University science,
knowledge capture and firm performance in
biotechnology." Management Science. Vol. 48, pp. 138-
153.
Zucker, L.G. and Darby, M. R. (2001), "Capturing
technological opportunity via Japan's star scientists:
Evidence from Japanese firms' biotech patents and
products." Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, pp.
37-58.
Zucker, L, Darby, M. and Brewer, M. (1998),
"Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S.
biotechnology enterprises." American Economic Review,
Vol. 88, pp. 290-306.
Zucker, L. and Darby, M. Stuart. (1996), "Scientists and
institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and
innovation in the formation of the biotechnology
industry." Proceedings of the National Academy
Sciences. Vol. 93,pp. 709-716.

Tablet: Descriptive Statistics

Variables Mean Std. Deviation

Value ofInnovation (FwdCitat t) 34.39 94.96
Conceptualization_Learning t-I 54.14 208.14
Experimentation_Learning t-I 15.80 46.98
Experience Learning t-l 5.68 8.87
Reflection_Learning t-l 146.09 95.02
Firm_age t-I 10.3915 5.86265
Firm Size t-l .7434 1.34924
R&D_Intensity t-l 94.18 136.76
Patent_Age t 6.54 3.58
NoofClaims t 128.33 256.450
Total Patent t 6.58 10.349

© Asia-Pacific Institute ofManagement, New Delhi

Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
 Table 2: Correlations

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Value ofInnovation (FwdCitat t) I -.017 .025 .147(**) .044 .532(**) -.055 .101 .057 .272(**) .188(**) .296(**)
2 Conceptualization_Learning t-I -.017 I .075 .100(*) .049 -.016 .247(**) .322(**) .353(**) .069 .062 .088(*)
3 Experimentation_Learning t-I .025 .075 I .665(**) .546(**) .075 .174(**) .065 .023 -.147(**) .537(**) .558(**)
4 Experience_Learning t-I .147(**) .100(*) .665(**) 1 .837(**) .348(**) .223(**) .165(**) .090 -.142(**) .714(**) .828(**)
5 Reflection_Learning t-I .044 .049 .546(**) .837(**) 1 .150(**) .309(**) .160(**) .128(*) -.219(**) .564(**) .733(**)
6 FwdCitat t-I .532(**) -.016 .075 .348(**) .150(**) 1 -.015 .127(*) .084 .224(**) .129(**) .216(**)
7 Finn_age t-I -.055 .247(**) .174(**) .223(**) .309(**) -.015 1 .041 .071 -.298(**) .166(**) .193(**)
8 Finn Size t-I .101 .322(**) .065 .165(**) .160(**) .127(*) .041 1 .642(**) .022 .141(**) .164(**)
9 R&D_Intensity t-I .057 .353(**) .023 .090 .128(*) .084 .071 .642(**) 1 .000 .017 .084
10 Patent_Age t .272(**) .069 -.147(**) -.142(**) .219(**) .224(**) -.298(**) .022 .000 1 -.143(**) -.111(**)
11 No of Claims t .188(**) .062 .537(**) .714(**) .564(**) .129(**) .166(**) .141(**) .017 -.143(**) 1 .869(**)
12 Total Patent t .296(**) .088(*) .558(**) .828(**) .733(**) .216(**) .193(**) .164(**) .084 -.lll(**) .869(**) 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015
Table 3: Negative binomial regression of the impact of conceptual, experimentation, reflection and experience
learning on the value of innovation

Variables Model-l Model-2 Model-3 Model-4 Model-5

Constant -2.5414*** -2.2701*** -2.5280*** -2.6253*** -2.6653***
[0.4895] [0.4975] [0.5016] [0.5027] [0.5080]
Conceptualization_Learning t-I 0.0016 0.0062 0.0057
[0.0022] [0.0045] [0.0044]
Conceptualization_Learning_Squared t-I -0.0000 0.0000
[0.0000] [0.0000]
Experimentation_Learning t-I 0.0014+ 0.0064** 0.0074** 0.0070**
[0.0010] [0.0025] [0.0026] [0.0026]
Experimentation_Learning_Squared t-I -0.0001 * -0.0001** -0.0001 **
[0.0000] [0.0000] [0.0000]
Experience_Learning t-I -0.0357* -0.0651 ** -0.0608** -0.0557*
[0.0164] [0.0253] [0.0248] [0.0248]
Experience_ LearningSquared t-I 0.0005* 0.0005* 0.0004*
[0.0003] [0.0003] [0.0003]
Reflection_Learning t-I 0.0001 0.0011* 0.0011 * 0.0011*
[0.0004] [0.0006] [0.0005] [0.0006]
Reflection_Learning_Squared t-I -0.0000* -0.0000** -0.0000*
[0.0000] [0.0000] [0.0000]
FwdCitat t-I 0.0021 * 0.0029** 0.0030* 0.0028* 0.0026*
[0.0010] [0.0011] [0.0012] [0.0012] [0.0012]
Finn_age t-I 0.0500+ 0.0472+ 0.0512+ 0.0536* 0.0596*
[0.0263] [0.0266] [0.0271] [0.0269] [0.0265]
Finn Size t-I -0.0305 -0.0543 -0.0825 -0.0514 -0.0113
[0.0982] [0.1045] [0.1079] [0.1099] [0.1056]

R&D_Intensity t-I 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010

[0.0008] [0.0008] [0.0009] [0.0009] [0.0009]
Patent_Age t 0.3463*** 0.3213** 0.3417*** 0.3562*** 0.3636***
[0.0395] [0.0406] [0.0423] [0.0432] [0.0432]
No of Claims t 0.0002 0.0000 -0.0000 -0.0001 -0.0001
[0.0003] [0.0003] [0.0003] [0.0003] [0.0003]
Total Patent t 0.0131+ 0.0359** 0.0362*** 0.0367*** 0.0391***
[0.0075] [0.0125] [0.0108] [0.0106] [0.0110]
No Uni Alliance t-I -0.1477 -0.1741
[0.1293] [0.1289]
No FirmAlliance t-I -0.0'601 -0.0535
[0.0559] [0.0566]
Log-likelihood -768.3144 -762.8886 -759.4357 -758.2276 -759.0583

+p<0.1,*p<0.05,**p<0.01,***p<0.OOl. Standard error is provided in the parentheses.

Technology class dummy variables were included.
Single tailed t-test was used for all hypothesized variables, two tailed t-test was conducted for control variables.

© Asia-Pacific Institute ofManagement, New Delhi

Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on March 24, 2015