ARTICLE IN PRESS

Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technovation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation

Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output:

Cross-cultural validation of the structural model
Nika Murovec a, Igor Prodan b,
a
Institute for Economic Research, Kardeljeva pl. 17, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
b
Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva pl. 17, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

The main purpose of this study is to provide stronger quantitative evidence in the field of organizational
Keywords: absorptive capacity research by using a more direct measure of absorptive capacity and a wide range of
Absorptive capacity variables in a cross-nationally tested structural model. The results show that there exist two kinds of
Innovation absorptive capacity: demand-pull and science-push. Their most important determinants proved to be
Structural model internal R&D, training of personnel, innovation co-operation and attitude toward change. Both kinds of
Cross-cultural study absorptive capacity are positively related to product and process innovation output. Therefore,
absorptive capacity is to be given more attention in the future research and innovation policy
considerations.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Modern economies are not based on capital and labour as
much as they are based on knowledge, which became the key
factor of development (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). The knowl-
edge creation, distribution, diffusion, application and manipula-
tion are crucial in the knowledge society (e.g. Davenport and
Prusak, 1998; Shapira et al., 2006; World Bank, 2007). New fields
of knowledge progress rapidly and the products’ lifecycles become
shorter over time. In order to survive, an organization has to
innovate constantly (e.g. Galanakis, 2006). However, innovation is
not only crucial for companies, but it also has a great influence on
the economy as a whole, since it increases the economic growth,
national competitiveness and productivity (Coad and Rao, 2008;
Fagerberg, 2001; Freeman and Soete, 1994; Mowery and Nelson,
1999; Porter, 1998). Knowledge and innovation are intertwined;
innovation is based on the application of new knowledge and at
the same time, the application of new knowledge leads to change
and innovation. Therefore, knowledge is the key to innovation
(e.g. Jensen et al., 2007; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; World Bank,
2007). However, since the innovations are progressively becoming
more complex, the mastering of just one technological field is no
longer sufficient. In order for innovation activity to provide a
desired output, an organization needs to possess knowledge from
many different fields. To be able to set up a broad knowledge base,
an organization has to absorb information from all kinds of
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +386 41779 140; fax: +386 1 589 26 98.
E-mail addresses: murovecn@ier.si (N. Murovec),
igor.prodan@gmail.com (I. Prodan).
sources—not just internal, but also all available external sources.
Extensive acquaintance with the relevant fields is necessary for a
company to even be aware of the existing external knowledge and
technological development. Furthermore, to understand and
implement ideas and concepts of others, organizations must have
the competencies that enable them to understand, decodify and
utilize these ideas (Grunfeld, 2003). Absorptive capacity repre-
sents the link between an organization’s internal capability to
develop new products and improve existing ones, and external
base of information and opportunities on the other side, and is
most commonly defined as the ‘‘ability of an organization to
recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it,
and apply it to commercial ends’’ (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990).
Despite several theoretical (e.g. Grunfeld, 2003; Lane et al.,
2006; Todorova and Durisin, 2007; Zahra and George, 2002) and
empirical studies (e.g. Jansen et al., 2005; Stock et al., 2001; Tu et
al., 2006; Vinding, 2006) of organizational absorptive capacity,
which emerged in the last decade, this field is still under-
investigated. Studies of absorptive capacity usually assume that
there exists only one absorptive capacity; however, it seems
unlikely that an organization, which has high absorptive capacity,
is capable of absorbing information from all available external
sources of knowledge. Furthermore, while some studies try to
explain the concept of absorptive capacity and its determinants,
there is a great lack of quantitative support for their findings. To a
large extent this is probably due to the fact that the qualitative
nature of the absorptive capacity makes it a very difficult concept
to measure quantitatively. This is also the reason that the used
approaches in the existing quantitative studies are often argu-
mentative. Commonly, they do not really measure the absorptive
capacity but its suggested indicators—in most cases R&D or

0166-4972/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.05.010
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
860 N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872
human resources (e.g. Stock et al., 2001; Veugelers, 1997; Vinding,
2006). This approach is also used when examining the influence of
absorptive capacity on innovation (e.g. Mancusi, 2004; Stock et al.,
2001; Vinding, 2006). Consequently, this leaves the question,
whether it is really absorptive capacity that influences innovation
or is it the proxies (R&D, human resources, etc.) that influence
innovation directly. Due to the great attention placed on the role
of knowledge and its relationship to innovation in the current
policy discussions in all developed countries, further studies of
the issue of absorptive capacity, its determinants and its
importance for innovation, are needed.
To avoid the above-mentioned weaknesses of the previous
research, a more direct measure of absorptive capacity is used in
this paper. A contribution is made by statistically investigating
whether the absorptive capacity is in fact a one-factor structure
or a multiple-factor structure. Furthermore, a conceptual model
of absorptive capacity and its influence on innovation output is
developed and tested on robust datasets from two different
countries to increase its validity and enable a cross-national
comparison.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an
overview of the existing research, based on which the hypotheses
are postulated, and a conceptual model of absorptive capacity and
its influence on innovation output is developed. In Section 3, the
research methodology, which was used to test the conceptual
model, is described. The estimation results of the empirical
analysis in the Czech Republic and Spain are presented in Section
4, followed by their discussion and conclusion in Section 5.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
In this section, the theoretical background of this paper will be
examined. Based on that, several hypotheses will be postulated
about the absorptive capacity, its determinants and its relation
to innovation. At the end of this section, a conceptual model
of absorptive capacity and its influence on innovation output will
be presented.
2.1. The concept of absorptive capacity
The concept of absorptive capacity originated in macroeco-
nomics, where it refers to the ability of an economy to utilize and
absorb external information and resources (Adler, 1965). Cohen
and Levinthal (1990) adapted this macroeconomic concept to
organizations and described absorptive capacity as ‘‘the ability of
an organization to recognize the value of new, external informa-
tion, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends’’. They
suggested that absorptive capacity is largely a function of the
organization’s level of prior related knowledge and argued that it
is critical to the organization’s innovative capabilities.
In recent years scholars have used the concept of absorptive
capacity in their analyses at different levels: individual (Cohen
and Levinthal, 1990), business unit (Szulanski, 1996), organization
(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), dyad (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998),
cluster (Giuliani, 2003; Giuliani and Bell, 2005), industrial
districts (Aage, 2003a, b) and country (Criscuolo and Narula,
2008; Dahlman and Nelson, 1995). However, very few empirical
studies capture the rich theoretical arguments and the multi-
dimensionality of the absorptive capacity construct. The defini-
tions and operationalizations of this construct vary; some scholars
have even used the term absorptive capacity without defining it
(e.g. Glass and Saggi, 1998; Keller, 1996). Most authors have used
different modifications of the concept suggested by Cohen and
Levinthal (1990) but still retained the notion that absorptive
capacity is not a one-dimensional concept, consisting rather of
various skills and dimensions. Mowery and Oxley (1995) proposed
a definition of absorptive capacity as a broad set of skills needed
to deal with the tacit component of transferred knowledge
and the need to modify this imported knowledge. Kim (1997,
1998) defines absorptive capacity as the capacity to learn
and solve problems. Zahra and George (2002) expanded the
most commonly used definition by Cohen and Levinthal (1990)
and defined absorptive capacity as ‘‘a set of organizational
routines and processes by which organizations acquire, assimilate,
transform, and exploit knowledge to produce a dynamic organiza-
tional capability’’, which is ‘‘pertaining to knowledge creation
and utilization that enhances an organization’s ability to gain
and sustain a competitive advantage’’ (Zahra and George, 2002,
p. 185). By defining absorptive capacity as a dynamic capability,
they emphasized the strategic nature of absorptive capacity.
Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) basic definition is most widely
accepted. Since it captures the main idea of the concept very well
and is at the same time most simple and comprehensible, we also
derive from this definition in this paper. However, based on the
distinction between two types of innovation (science-push and
demand-pull), we propose two different types of absorptive
capacity: (1) science-push absorptive capacity, which is based
on scientific information (e.g. universities, non-profit research
institutes, commercial R&D enterprises); and (2) demand-pull
absorptive capacity, which is based on market information (e.g.
customers, suppliers, competitors, professional conferences, fairs).
The underlying reasons for this preposition shall be developed
further in the next section where a related hypothesis will also be
postulated.
2.2. Science-push and demand-pull absorptive capacity
Since Schumpeter (1934), the debate has raged about whether
it is market demand or technological opportunity that explains
inventor’s decisions to bring their ideas to the market. These one-
sided approaches are designated briefly as ‘‘science-push’’
theories of innovation and ‘‘demand-pull’’ theories of innovation
(Freeman and Soete, 1997). Even though Schumpeter (1939)
argued strongly against a single factor causation of economic
growth or decline, he is nevertheless associated with the science-
push rather than demand-pull side of the controversy (Walsh,
1993). While Schumpeter argued that entrepreneurs are driven by
technological opportunity, early studies indicated that increases
in demand preceded increases in inventive activity over the
business cycle (Schmookler, 1962). Most scholars confirmed
Schmookler’s findings, concluding that user ‘‘need’’ is the most
important driver of innovation (for a review see Freeman, 1982).
Even though the market demand vs. technological opportunity
debate has recently been re-invigorated by research demonstrat-
ing support for technological opportunity (Bernstein and Singh,
2006; Goldenberg et al., 2001; Shane, 2001), most researchers
do not support such one-sided, but a more integrated approach
to innovation (Marsh and Oxley, 2005). Since learning plays a key
role in the process of innovation, interaction and information
absorption from all available sources are very important. There-
fore, in this study a one-sided approach is considered inadequate.
Unlike many studies of absorptive capacity, which put emphasis
only on science-push side (e.g. Leahy and Neary, 2007; Parisi et al.,
2006; Stock et al., 2001), in this research relevant information
from market as well as scientific sources is included.
Assuming that organizational absorptive capacity also depends
upon the characteristics of external knowledge, Nelson and Wolff
(1997) pointed out that science-based technological opportunity
requires a higher level of absorptive capacity than that generated
by other knowledge sources such as customers. Becker and Peters
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872
(2000) argue that organizations need higher absorptive capacities
for scientific knowledge than for other types of knowledge. Based
on their findings, Schmidt (2005) assumed (but not empirically
supported the assumption) that there are different absorptive
capacities for different kinds of knowledge, one distinction being
between science-based knowledge and knowledge from the
private sector.
The market demand vs. technological opportunity debate
together with the research indicating that there are different
kinds of absorptive capacity regarding the nature of the knowl-
edge, led us to consider whether there exist different kinds of
capacities to assimilate external information regarding the nature
of this information. We distinguished between the information
that enables science-push or demand-pull innovation and formed
the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis H1. Absorptive capacity is a two-factor structure
comprising a science-push component and demand-pull compo-
nent.
2.3. The determinants of absorptive capacity
2.3.1. Internal R&D and absorptive capacity
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) highlighted that organizations
must develop absorptive capacity in order to benefit from external
knowledge flows. Mowery (1984) has pointed out that an
organization is far better equipped to absorb the output
of external R&D if it is also performing some amount of R&D
internally. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) showed that organizational
investment in R&D contributes to organizational absorptive
capacity. Since then, R&D has been recognized as a potential
determinant in most of the absorptive capacity studies. Many
scholars also tried to empirically verify the importance of R&D
using different measures (e.g. Escribano et al., 2005; Griffith et al.,
2004; Kneller and Stevens, 2006; Mancusi, 2004; Rocha, 1999);
however, the overview showed that their results differ and
suggest that R&D is not equally important in all circumstances
and for all kinds of knowledge (Grunfeld, 2004; Schmidt, 2005).
To investigate the influence of internal R&D on science-push
absorptive capacity and demand-pull absorptive capacity, the
following hypotheses are postulated:
Hypothesis H2. The extent of an organization’s internal R&D
expenditure will be positively related to the extent of:
H2a: science-push absorptive capacity.
H2b: demand-pull absorptive capacity.
2.3.2. Extramural R&D and absorptive capacity
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) considered the possibility for an
organization to buy its absorptive capacity. They suggested that
the effectiveness of such options is limited, especially for those
bought components of absorptive capacity, which are associated
with product and process innovation. This type of information is
often organization-specific and thus cannot be bought and quickly
integrated into the organization (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990).
There are arguments indicating that the acquisition of extramural
R&D (bought R&D performed by external organizations) may
stimulate rather than substitute internal R&D activities (Braga
and Willmore, 1991; Hung and Tang, 2008; Siddharthan, 1992).
Veugelers (1997) showed that bought extramural R&D increases
organization’s own in-house R&D expenditures, but only if an
organization already possesses its own absorptive capacity. Since
most research on absorptive capacity showed that in-house R&D
expenditures are a determinant of organizational absorptive
capacity (e.g. Escribano et al., 2005; Griffith et al., 2004; Kamien
861
and Zang, 2000; Mancusi, 2004; Rocha, 1999), it can be inferred
that also bought extramural R&D increases organizational absorp-
tive capacity, but again only if an organization has its own prior
absorptive capacity. However, most of the scholars focused on
internally developed components of absorptive capacity and
not on those that can be bought. Therefore, to further investigate
the influence of bought components of absorptive capacity, the
following hypotheses are postulated:
Hypothesis H3. The extent of bought extramural R&D will be
positively related to the extent of:
H3a: demand-pull absorptive capacity.
H3b: science-push absorptive capacity.
2.3.3. Human capital and absorptive capacity
Education has long been recognized as significant in improving
innovation systems (List, 1841 as reported in Lundvall et al., 2002).
Although R&D activities are the most often mentioned determi-
nant of absorptive capacity, lately some studies have moved away
from this traditional indicator and have instead focused on
the human capital involved in the process (Kneller and Stevens,
2006; Mangematin and Nesta, 1999; Vinding, 2006). Education
and training increase the stock of knowledge in the organization
(Mangematin and Nesta, 1999). The existing empirical studies
mostly examine the importance of highly educated employees for
absorptive capacity but neglect the importance of the organiza-
tion’s later investments in training, which is more focused on an
organization’s specific needs. Since the employees’ knowledge is
not only the result of their formal education, the following
hypotheses were formed:
Hypothesis H4. Training of personnel directly related to innova-
tion projects will be positively related to the extent of:
H4a: demand-pull absorptive capacity.
H4b: science-push absorptive capacity.
2.3.4. Co-operation and absorptive capacity
Some research investigating the influence of an organization’s
collaboration with different actors on its innovative performance
or on certain aspects of its absorptive capacity has been
conducted. Belderbos et al. (2004) and Becker and Dietz (2004)
showed that R&D co-operation increases organizations’ innova-
tion. Tether’s (2002) logistic regression analysis showed that co-
operations are considerably more common when organizations
are developing higher level innovations (i.e. more novel and/or
more complex innovations). Vinding (2006) argues that the
organization’s development of closer external relationships
increases the potential effect of transferring information as well
as tacit knowledge. His study reveals that organizations that have
developed closer relationships to vertically related actors and also
to knowledge institutions do significantly better on innovative
performance compared to organizations that have only developed
a closer relationship to one of the actors, and they do much better
as compared to organizations that have not developed closer
relationships to their external actors. Cohen and Levinthal (1990)
linked together von Hippel’s (1988) findings about the importance
of close relationships with buyers and suppliers for innovation,
with the concept of absorptive capacity, and concluded that since
a broad and active network of organization’s internal and external
relationships will strengthen individuals’ awareness of others’
capabilities and knowledge, this will result in leveraging indivi-
dual absorptive capacities and strengthening of the organization’s
absorptive capacity. Fabrizio (2006) suggests that more collabora-
tion with university scientists by an organization is associated
with more exploitation of published scientific research (higher
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
862 N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872
absorptive capacity) and shorter lag times between existing
knowledge and new organization’s inventions exploiting this
knowledge. Theory on strategic networks suggests that linkages to
many network partners may increase the breadth and variety of
information to which an organization has access, while strong
linkages to one or few network partners may unproductively limit
an organization’s vision of alternatives (Gulati et al., 2000). Based
on case studies, Lim (2006) argues that absorptive capacity is
primarily a function of connectedness. Most of the existing
research (e.g. Cockburn and Henderson, 1998; Fabrizio, 2006;
Vinding, 2006), however, only focuses on co-operation with a
certain type of actors, and investigates the influence of co-
operation on innovation and not on absorptive capacity or is not
empirically verified. Therefore, to empirically investigate whether
collaboration with different types of actors (not only the actors
located in the value chain of the product/service but also public or
commercial knowledge institutions and consultants) influences
organizational absorptive capacity, the following hypotheses are
postulated:
Hypothesis H5. The extent of innovation co-operation with
different types of partner organizations will be positively related
to the extent of:
H5a: demand-pull absorptive capacity.
H5b: science-push absorptive capacity.
2.3.5. Attitude towards change and absorptive capacity
Absorptive capacity is also influenced by organizational factors
such as organizational structure, organizational culture and
organizational communication (Alvesson, 2002; Cohen and
Levinthal, 1990; Van Den Bosch et al., 1999). These factors are
intertwined and influence each other. Since they are difficult to
measure, they have mostly been studied in qualitative studies. As
a consequence, there is a great lack of empirical evidence of their
influence on the absorptive capacity. Therefore, in this research,
an attempt to quantitatively investigate at least one aspect of this
group of factors will be made. Organizational culture has an
important influence on an organization’s innovativeness; it is of
specific importance whether tradition or continuous change is a
value in the organization (Kanter, 1985). People try to adjust to a
certain culture and if changes are desired, the individuals will be
much more motivated to search information about possible
changes and improvements. However, strong cultures tend to be
xenophobic and reluctant to everything that is different, hinder
the process of change and foster inbreeding (Kotter, 1996). These
kinds of cultures are unfavourable to innovation, especially if the
ideas for innovation come from outside the organization, which is
known as a Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome (Fagerberg, 2004).
Since organizational culture also influences the employees’
perception of the external environment (Oden, 1997), conse-
quently, they are also reluctant to assimilate and use external
information because they are incapable of recognizing their value,
even though they might be aware of them. Therefore, these kinds
of cultures leave little room for the absorption of the external
sources of knowledge, especially if they contradict the existing
beliefs (Van Den Bosch et al., 1999). Based on this, we can assume
that the attitude towards change influences the organizational
absorptive capacity. To empirically confirm this assumption, we
formed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis H6. The positiveness of the attitude towards change
will be positively related to the extent of:
H6a: demand-pull absorptive capacity.
H6b: science-push absorptive capacity.
2.4. Absorptive capacity and innovation output
Schumpeter was the first who included external information
alongside internal information in his model of innovation
(Freeman, 1982). Nevertheless, for many years, the greater
importance was placed on the internal creation of knowledge.
Only recently it became apparent that the internal knowledge is
not sufficient and that for successful innovation it is crucial that
an organization uses the information from all available sources.
The closed innovation model has been substituted by the open
innovation model (Chesbrough, 2003), which emphasizes the
importance of external knowledge. The fact that most innova-
tion results from borrowing rather than invention (Cohen and
Levinthal, 1990) further demonstrates the importance of external
knowledge. The ability to exploit external information—absorptive
capacity—is thus a critical component of innovative capabilities
and output.
Many researchers investigated the influence of absorptive
capacity on various aspects of innovation (e.g. Cohen and
Levinthal, 1990; Knudsen et al., 2001; Mancusi, 2004; Vinding,
2006). Most of them, however, did not measure the direct effect
of absorptive capacity on innovation, but the effects of certain
determinants of absorptive capacity on innovation. Since there is
still no consensus regarding which determinants constitute
absorptive capacity, their approaches and, consequently, their
results, differ. Therefore, we wanted to examine the influence
of absorptive capacity on innovation more closely. To avoid the
discussions about the operationalisation and measurement issues
(e.g. Cormican and O’Sullivan, 2004; Godin, 2003; Kleinknecht et
al., 2002; Rejeb et al., 2008; Smith, 2005), instead of the general
term ‘‘innovation’’, the more explicit and less complex term
‘‘innovation output’’ is used. Innovation output (e.g. profit,
patents, sales, improved quality, cost reduction, etc.) is also what
is actually being measured in most of the studies of absorptive
capacity and innovation (e.g. Becker and Peters, 2000; Knudsen
et al., 2001; Mancusi, 2004; Vinding, 2006). The example of the
researchers of innovation, who customarily distinguish between
product and process innovation (e.g. Arundel and Kabla, 1998;
Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 1997; Utterback and Abernathy,
1975) was followed, since the literature on absorptive capacity has
dealt primarily with overall innovative activity. Since we also
distinguished between demand-pull and science-push absorptive
capacity, we wanted to explore the influence that different types
of absorptive capacity have on process and product innovation
output. Therefore, the following hypotheses are postulated:
Hypothesis H7. The extent of demand-pull absorptive capacity
will be positively related to the extent of:
H7a: product innovation output.
H7b: process innovation output.
Hypothesis H8. The extent of science-push absorptive capacity
will be positively related to the extent of:
H8a: product innovation output.
H8b: process innovation output.
A resulting conceptual model of absorptive capacity and its
influence on innovation output that integrates previously devel-
oped hypotheses is presented in Fig. 1.
3. Methodology
The methodology is discussed in terms of sample and data
analysis, and operationalization and measure validation.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872
Fig. 1. The conceptual model of absorptive capacity and its influence on innovation output.
3.1. Sample and data analysis
The empirical analysis is based on the responses to Spanish
and Czech Republic’s third Community Innovation Survey (CIS3).
The choice of the countries was dictated by the access to data.
A total of 8024 manufacturing firms responded to the Spanish
survey and a total of 3300 manufacturing firms responded to
the Czech Republic’s survey. Among those, 2422 Spanish and
641 Czech Republic firms were selected for further analysis;
these were the firms that engaged in the innovation activities,
which means that they did the following: (1) introduced new
or significantly improved products or services; or (2) introduced
new or significantly improved production methods or service
delivery methods; or (3) engaged in the development of new or
significantly improved products, services or procedures, which
was not yet completed; or (4) engaged in the development of new
or significantly improved products, services or procedures, which
was abandoned.
Based on the low percentage of overall missing data (less than
1%) and no pattern in the missing data spread across variables, the
missing data in the dataset can be considered to be missing
completely at random (Hair et al., 1998; Rubin, 1976); therefore,
different imputation techniques can be applied (Hair et al., 1998).
In order to preserve the sample size in each of the two samples,
two imputation techniques were used: within case mean (referred
to also as person mean) imputation (Bernaards and Sijtsma, 2000;
Downey and King, 1998; Roth et al., 1999) and item mean
imputation. Within case mean imputation technique was used
if there were less than 50% of missing values within a parti-
cular construct; otherwise, item mean imputation was used.
The rationale behind the multiple imputation approach is that
the use of multiple approaches minimizes the specific concerns
with any single method (Hair et al., 1998). All variables were
standardized using data from the overall sample. Standardizing
the data separately for each of the groups would lead to different
rescaling of measured variables within each group, destroying
the comparability across groups of the common scale for the
measured variables and leading to inability to compare parameter
estimates across groups (Reise et al., 1993). Construct convergent
validity and discriminant validity was assessed using exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis (Floyd and Widaman, 1995).
Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951)
for internal consistency. Exploratory factor analysis was per-
formed, using the maximum likelihood (ML) extraction method
and direct oblimin rotation. Reliability and exploratory factor
analysis was performed with SPSS, version 13.0. While conducting
863
the confirmatory factor analysis, the analytical steps suggested by
Marsh and Hocevar (1985, 1988) were followed. For confirmatory
factor analysis and structural equation modeling, the EQS Multi-
variate Software version 6.1 (Bentler and Wu, 2006) was used.
Since a small amount of non-normality is present in the data, the
structural relationships in the model of absorptive capacity were
estimated using the elliptical reweighted least squares (ERLS)
method. ERLS minimizes the problems deriving from data
skewness and kurtosis and is otherwise comparable with the
maximum likelihood method (Sharma et al., 1989). In order to
identify the determinants of absorptive capacity that are country
specific, a multisample analysis was conducted. In the multi-
sample analysis, the model was constrained for equality of factor
loadings and for equality of error variances, as suggested by
several researchers (e.g. Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996; Singh, 1995;
Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). As recommended by Shook et al.
(2004), the fit of the model was assessed with multiple indices:
the normed-fit-index (NFI), the non-normed-fit index (NNFI), the
comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Values of NFI, NNFI,
CFI and GFI greater than 0.90 indicate a good model fit (Byrne,
2006; Hair et al., 1998). Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest that values
of SRMR less than 0.08 indicate an acceptable fit. Values of RMSEA
less than 0.05 indicate a good fit, and values as high as 0.08
represent reasonable errors of approximation in the population
(Browne and Cudeck, 1992). The w2 is reported, but is not given
major consideration, because it is highly sensitive to sample size
and the number of items in the model (Bentler and Bonett, 1980).
3.2. Operationalization and measure validation
In this study, the variables were measured through scales
developed for the Community Innovation Survey. Items with
extreme skew and/or extreme kurtosis were transformed by
employing the square root transformation (Hair et al., 1998).
Measurement items’ descriptive statistics and correlation matrix
for both samples are presented in Appendix 1.
3.2.1. Internal R&D
Internal R&D was measured with two items. The first item was
operationalized as innovative expenditures for intramural re-
search and experimental development. The second item was
operationalized as the number of employees involved in intra-
mural R&D activities, including persons both inside and outside
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
864 N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872
the R&D department. Cronbach’s alphas of 0.75 for the Czech
Republic’s sample and of 0.72 for the Spanish sample were both
above the threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 1998), indicating strong
internal consistency of items operationalized to measure the
construct. Internal R&D was entered in the model of absorptive
capacity as latent construct.
3.2.2. Extramural R&D
Extramural R&D was measured as innovative expenditures for
all innovative activities performed by other organizations or other
public or private research organizations.
3.2.3. Training of personnel related to innovation projects
Training of personnel related to innovation projects was
measured as a dichotomous variable, which indicated if the firm
engaged in internal or external training of their personnel directly
aimed at the development and/or introduction of innovations.
3.2.4. Innovation co-operation
Respondents were asked to indicate whether their company
was involved in any co-operation arrangements on innovation
activities with the following types of organizations: (1) other
enterprises within their enterprise group; (2) suppliers
of equipment, material, components or software; (3) clients of
customers; (4) competitors and other firms from the same
industry; (5) consultants; (6) commercial laboratories or R&D
enterprises; (7) universities or other higher educational institutes;
and (8) government or private non-profit research institutes.
Respondents were additionally asked to indicate the location
of each type of organization: (1) national; (2) within European
Union; (3) within European Union candidate countries; (4) United
States; (5) Japan; and (6) other. Accordingly, innovation co-
operation was measured as a sum of all co-operation arrange-
ments in the matrix: type of the organization—location of
organization. The scale ranged from 0 to 48.
3.2.5. Attitude towards change
Respondents were asked to indicate whether their company
undertook the following activities related to implementation
of: (1) new or significantly changed corporate strategies; (2)
advanced management techniques within their enterprise; (3)
new or significantly changed organizational structures; and (4)
significantly changed enterprise’s marketing concepts or strate-
gies. Cronbach’s alphas of 0.73 for the Czech Republic’s sample
and of 0.71 for the Spanish sample were both above the threshold
of 0.70 (Hair et al., 1998). The factor analysis indicated that all
factor loadings were above 0.4. Attitude towards change was
entered in the model of absorptive capacity as latent construct.
3.2.6. Demand-pull and science-push absorptive capacity
Most of the researchers, which made an effort to operationalise
and quantify the concept of absorptive capacity, measured
absorptive capacity with R&D (e.g. Cassiman and Veugelers,
2002; Cockburn and Henderson, 1998; del Carmen Haro-Dom-
ı́nguez et al., 2007; Hall et al., 2005; Xia and Roper, 2008).
However, this operationalisation is based on an assumption that
R&D is an important predictor of the absorptive capacity, which
has not been clearly supported by the empirical evidence. Also
some other attempts to measure absorptive capacity follow the
same logic; only that R&D is substituted by some other assumed
absorptive capacity proxy (Keller, 1996; Mowery and Oxley, 1995;
Veugelers, 1997).
Only very recently some attempts have been made to improve
the measurement of absorptive capacity (e.g. Arbussa and
Coenders, 2007; Schmidt, 2005). Following these examples, in
this study the absorptive capacity was measured with the use
and importance of different sources of information needed
for suggesting new innovation projects or contributing to the
implementation of existing projects: (1) information from
suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software; (2)
information from clients or customers; (3) information from
competitors within the same industry; (4) information from
universities or other higher education institutions; (5) informa-
tion from government or private non-profit research institutes;
and (6) information from fairs and exhibitions (see Appendix 1 for
details). This measure is based on an assumption that in order
for an organization to be able to use certain external sources of
information for its innovation activity, it must possess certain
absorptive capacity; an organization that uses more different
external sources and considers them to be of greater importance,
possesses greater absorptive capacity. It is highly unlikely that
there exists no external information relevant for the organization,
therefore it can be assumed, that the organization which
considers information from all external sources irrelevant for
innovation, is in fact just lacking absorptive capacity to detect,
acquire or use those information. While this is obviously still not a
direct measure of absorptive capacity, the assumptions taken into
account seem to be less questionable.
The respondents indicated the degree of importance of a
specific source of information on a four-level scale. First, an
exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine an initial
factor structure of the absorptive capacity construct. The ex-
ploratory factor analysis resulted in a two-factor solution in both
samples. Factor 1 was interpreted as demand-pull absorptive
capacity, whilst factor 2 was interpreted as science-push absorp-
tive capacity. The two dimensions of absorptive capacity (and
their six pertaining items with factor loadings) are shown in Table
1. All Cronbach’s alphas were above the threshold of 0.70.
In addition, the confirmatory factor analysis was performed to
compare the one-factor structure with the two-factor structure.
First, the one-factor model was specified. In this model, the six
items were modeled to load on one latent, unobserved factor.
If that model was supported, that would suggest that one single
factor is sufficient to explain the common variance of the
six items. In the second model, the items of each scale were
constrained to load on factors established with the exploratory
factor analysis. Both factors were modeled to correlate with
one another. The purpose of this investigation was to test the
Hypothesis 1. The fit measures are shown in Table 2. As expected,
the one-factor structure showed a poor fit in both samples, and
the two-factor structure showed a large and statistically
significant improvement over the one-factor structure. Two-
factor model goodness-of-fit indices indicated a good model
fit; therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Demand-pull and
science-push absorptive capacity were entered in the model
of absorptive capacity and its influence on innovation output as
latent constructs.
3.2.7. Product and process innovation output
Product innovation output was measured with two results
of innovation activity: (1) increased range of goods or services;
and (2) increased market or market share. Process innovations
were measured with four results of innovation activity: (1)
improved production flexibility; (2) increased production capa-
city; (3) reduced labour costs per produced unit; and (4) reduced
materials and energy per produced unit. The respondents
indicated the degree of impact of a specific result of innovation
on a four-level scale (see Appendix 1 for details). In order to verify
the accuracy of the distinction between product and process
innovation, we first performed an exploratory factor analysis. The
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872 865

Table 1
Absorptive capacity dimension’s item factor loadings.

Dimension/item Factors

Demand-pull absorptive capacity Science-push absorptive capacity

Czech republic Spain Czech republic Spain

Demand-pull absorptive capacity

Information from suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software 0.60 0.71
Information from clients or customers 0.73 0.56
Information from competitors within the same industry 0.72 0.68
Information from fairs and exhibitions 0.54 0.56

Science-push absorptive capacity

Information from universities or other higher education institutions 0.85 0.58
Information from government or private non-profit research institutes 0.62 0.98

Extraction method: maximum likelihood. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization (absolute factor loadings higher than 0.20 displayed). Results vary slightly
with Varimax extraction method. Czech Republic: N ¼ 641. Bartlett’s test of sphericity: approx. w2 of 913.11; 15 df; sig. 0.000. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy: 0.76. Variance explained: 48.1%. Spain: N ¼ 2422. Bartlett’s test of sphericity: approx. w2 of 3055.10; 15 df; sig. 0.000. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy: 0.70. Variance explained: 47.9%.

Table 2
Summary of confirmatory factor analysis fit statistics.

Sample/model Model fit indices

w2a df NFI NNFI CFI GFI SRMR RMSEA

Czech Republic
One-factor absorptive capacity model 160.45 9 0.86 0.78 0.87 0.92 0.09 0.16
Two-factor absorptive capacity model 30.34 8 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.03 0.07

Spain
One-factor absorptive capacity model 735.74 9 0.78 0.63 0.78 0.90 0.11 0.18
Two-factor absorptive capacity model 127.76 8 0.96 0.93 0.96 0.98 0.04 0.08

a
All w2 significant at 0.001.

Table 3
Innovation dimension’s item factor loadings.

Dimension/item Factors

Product innovation output Process innovation output

Czech republic Spain Czech republic Spain

Product innovation output

Increased range of goods or services 0.77 0.99
Increased market or market share 0.91 0.60

Process innovation output

Improved production flexibility 0.70 0.73
Increased production capacity 0.70 0.81
Reduced labor costs per produced unit 0.98 0.87
Reduced materials and energy per produced unit 0.72 0.68

Extraction method: maximum likelihood. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization (absolute factor loadings higher than 0.20 displayed). Results vary slightly
with Varimax extraction method. Czech Republic: N ¼ 641. Bartlett’s test of sphericity: approx. w2 of 1992.35; 15 df; sig. 0.000. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy: 0.81. Variance explained: 65.7%. Spain: N ¼ 2422. Bartlett’s test of sphericity: approx. w2 of 6316.87; 15 df; sig. 0.000. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy: 0.78. Variance explained: 64.8%.

results (shown in Table 3) confirmed the existence of two 4. Findings

innovation factors. All Cronbach’s alphas were above the
threshold of 0.70.
To further verify the findings of the exploratory factor analysis,
a confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Again, the results
(see Table 4) show that a two-factor innovation model is more
appropriate. Product and process innovation output were entered
in the model of absorptive capacity and its influence on
innovation output as latent constructs.
The resulting model goodness-of-fit indices for the model of
absorptive capacity, which differentiate between demand-pull
and science-push absorptive capacity, indicated a good model
fit in the multisample analysis (w2 ¼ 2758.140, 358 df, prob-
ability 0.000; NFI ¼ 0.91; NNFI ¼ 0.90; CFI ¼ 0.92; GFI ¼ 0.90;
SRMR ¼ 0.08; RMSEA ¼ 0.07). EQS reported that parameter
estimates appear in order, that no special problems were
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
866 N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872

encountered during the optimization, and that all equality
constraints were correctly imposed. Examination of the hypoth-
eses related to the model of absorptive capacity, which differ-
entiate between demand-pull and science-push absorptive
capacity, is presented in the following paragraphs. The model,
which includes hypothesized relationships and results of the
model test, is depicted in Fig. 2. Unstandardized coefficients
are reported to ensure comparability across Czech Republic’s
and Spanish sample (Singh, 1995). Structural equations with
standardized and unstandardized coefficients are shown in
Table 5 as well.
While the proposed model of absorptive capacity, which
differentiates between demand-pull and science-push absorptive
capacity, provided a good fit to the data, we also considered the
model of absorptive capacity, which does not differentiate
between demand-pull and science-push absorptive capacity. The
results of this additional analysis showed, that the goodness-
of-fit indices for the model of absorptive capacity, which does
not differentiates between demand-pull and science-push ab-
sorptive capacity, indicated only moderate model fit: NFI ¼ 0.87;
NNFI ¼ 0.86; CFI ¼ 0.88; GFI ¼ 0.86; SRMR ¼ 0.09; RMSEA ¼ 0.08.
Table 4
Summary of confirmatory factor analysis fit statistics.
Sample/model Model fit indices
w2a df NFI NNFI CFI GFI
Czech republic
One-factor innovation model 275.07 9 0.88 0.81 0.88 0.85 0.09
Two-factor innovation model 73.09 8 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.96 0.04
Spain
One-factor innovation model 942.27 9 0.87 0.78 0.87 0.87 0.11
Two-factor innovation model 179.39 8 0.97 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.03
a
All w2 significant at 0.001.
Thus, results suggest that the proposed model, which differenti-
ates between demand-pull and science-push absorptive capacity,
is more appropriate for interpreting the data, than the model
which does not differentiate between demand-pull and science-
push absorptive capacity. These results additionally support
hypothesis H1.
Hypothesis H2 proposed that the extent of an organization’s
internal R&D would be positively related to the extent of demand-
pull absorptive capacity (H2a) and science-push absorptive
capacity (H2b). The results indicate a significant relation-
ship between the extent of an organization’s internal R&D and
demand-pull absorptive capacity (a positive, significant standar-
dized coefficient of 0.22 for the Czech Republic’s sample, and of
0.06 for the Spanish sample); therefore, the results support the
hypothesis H2a. The results presented in Fig. 2 and Table 5 show
that internal R&D also has a significant and positive influence
on science-push absorptive capacity (standardized coefficient of
0.27 for the Czech Republic’s sample, and of 0.18 for the Spanish
sample), thus hypothesis H2b was supported.
Hypothesis H3 examined the relationships between extramur-
al R&D and demand-pull absorptive capacity (H3a) and science-
push absorptive capacity (H3b). The relationships between
extramural R&D and both types of absorptive capacity were not
significant in any of the samples, thus hypotheses H3a and H3b
were not supported.
Hypothesis H4 predicted that training of personnel related to
SRMR RMSEA innovation projects would be positively related to the demand-
pull (H4a) and science-push (H4b) absorptive capacity. Empirical
results were in support of hypothesis H4a (a positive and
0.22
0.11
significant standardized coefficient of 0.15 for the Czech Repub-
lic’s sample and of 0.10 for the Spanish sample), and in partial
support of hypothesis H4b (a positive but non-significant
0.21
0.09 standardized coefficient of 0.05 for the Czech Republic’s sample
and a positive and significant standardized coefficient of 0.06 for
the Spanish sample) were found.

Fig. 2. The model of absorptive capacity (standardized and unstandardized coefficients; unstandardized coefficients in brackets).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872 867

St. coeff. Unst. coeff. St. coeff. Unst. coeff. St. coeff. Unst. coeff. St. coeff. Unst. coeff. St. coeff. Unst. coeff. St. coeff. Unst. coeff. St. coeff. Unst. coeff. St. coeff. Unst. coeff.
Hypothesis H5 examined the impact of innovation co-opera-

Process innovation
tion on demand-pull absorptive capacity (H5a) and science-push

+0.19*
+0.14*
absorptive capacity (H5b). The relationship between innovation

0.91
0.17
co-operation and demand-pull absorptive capacity was not found

output

+0.38*
+0.14*
to be significant in any of the samples, thus hypothesis H5a was
not supported. On the other hand, the empirical results were in
support of hypothesis H5b for the Czech Republic’s and Spanish
Product innovation sample (positive and significant standardized coefficients of 0.30

+0.54*
+0.42*
and 0.35, respectively).

0.87
0.25
Hypothesis H6 looked at the relationships between the
attitude towards change and demand-pull (H6a) and science-
output

+0.45*
+0.17*
push (H6b) absorptive capacity. Empirical results were found in
support of hypothesis H6a (a positive and significant standardized
coefficient of 0.21 for the Czech Republic’s sample and of 0.29 for
absorptive capacity

+0.05*
+0.28*
+0.23* the Spanish sample), and in partial support of hypothesis H6b (a
+0.13*
+0.02
Science-push

positive but non-significant standardized coefficient of 0.09 for

0.84
0.30
the Czech Republic’s sample and a positive and significant
+0.06*

+0.20*
+0.35*
+0.18*

standardized coefficient of 0.20 for the Spanish sample).

+0.02

Hypothesis H7 looked at the relationships between demand-

pull (H7a) and science-push (H7b) absorptive capacity, and
Dependent variables

absorptive capacity

product innovation output. Based on the empirical results, the

+0.04*

+0.30*
+0.07*
0.03

0.02

hypothesis H7a was supported (positive and significant standar-

Demand-pull

0.94
0.11

dized coefficients of 0.54 and 0.45 for the Czech Republic’s and
Spanish sample, respectively). The results also supported hypoth-
+0.06*

+0.29*
+0.10*
0.05

0.03
Spain

esis H7b (positive and significant standardized coefficients of 0.24

and 0.17 for the Czech Republic’s and Spanish sample, respec-
tively).
Process innovation

Hypothesis H8 predicted that demand-pull (H8a) and science-

+0.55*
+0.21*

push (H8b) absorptive capacity would be positively related to

0.81
0.35

process innovation output. Empirical results were found in

output

+0.49*
+0.24*

support of hypothesis H8a (a positive and significant standardized

coefficient of 0.49 for Czech Republic’s sample and of 0.38 for the
Spanish sample), and in support of hypothesis H8b (a positive and
Product innovation

significant standardized coefficient of 0.24 for Czech Republic’s

+0.61*
+0.21*

sample and of 0.14 for the Spanish sample).

0.78
0.40
output

+0.54*
+0.24*

5. Discussion, implications and limitations

Legend: *Sig.o0.05; St. coeff.—standardized coefficient; Unst. coeff—unstandardized coefficient.

Despite the increase of the absorptive capacity studies in the

absorptive capacity

last years, there is still a great lack of empirical evidence in this

+0.36*

+0.22*
+0.04
+0.04

+0.11

field. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to offer

Science-push

0.85
0.27

additional quantitative evidence on some of the open issues. Since

+0.30*
+0.27*

many of the previous studies raise doubts about the validity of

+0.02
+0.05

+0.09

their results by using some very indirect measures of absorptive

capacity, in this paper a more direct measure of absorptive
Dependent variables

absorptive capacity

capacity was used, as suggested recently also by some other

+0.23*

+0.20*
+0.10*
0.03

+0.03

authors (e.g. Arbussa and Coenders, 2007; Schmidt, 2005).

Czech Republic

Demand-pull

0.90
0.19

While some of the previous studies already tackled the idea of

Structural equations for the model of absorptive capacity.

different kinds of absorptive capacities (e.g. Schmidt, 2005) an

+0.22*

+0.21*
Training of personnel related to innov. projects +0.15*
+0.06
0.02

important contribution is made here by also statistically confirm-

ing the hypothesis that the absorptive capacity is not a one-factor
Note: Czech Republic: N ¼ 641; Spain: N ¼ 2422.

structure but rather a two-factor structure. We define the two

distinguished dimensions as the demand-pull and the science-
push absorptive capacity. In order to be able to efficiently
assimilate external information from all available sources, both
Demand-pull absorptive capacity
Science-push absorptive capacity

kinds of absorptive capacity are essential. To benefit from

information deriving from the market sources of knowledge
(such as customers, competition, suppliers, etc.), an organization
Attitude towards change
Innovation co-operation

needs to possess sufficient demand-pull absorptive capacity.

Independent variables

Science-push absorptive capacity, on the other hand, enables an

Extramural R&D

organization to benefit from scientific external information (such

Internal R&D

as information from research institutes or universities).

In this paper, a conceptual model of absorptive capacity and its
Table 5

influence on innovation output is also developed, based on an

Error
R2

exhaustive literature overview. The conceptual model was tested

 868
Table 6
Measurement items’ descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for the Spanish sample.

Correlations
Construct Item Min Max Mean
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)

/ (1) 0.00 2583.86 71.82 1.00

/ (2) 0.00 1.00 0.38 0.12 1.00

N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872

/ (3) 0.00 2.83 0.27 0.25 0.14 1.00
Internal R&D (4) 0.00 3586.69 261.54 0.32 0.18 0.31 1.00
(5) 0.00 10.12 1.16 0.32 0.22 0.32 0.89 1.00

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Attitude towards change (6) 0.00 1.00 0.34 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.18 0.20 1.00
(7) 0.00 1.00 0.45 0.12 0.23 0.09 0.18 0.20 0.44 1.00
(8) 0.00 1.00 0.54 0.07 0.15 0.04 0.10 0.13 0.39 0.43 1.00
(9) 0.00 1.00 0.35 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.35 0.30 0.35 1.00
Demand-pull absorptive capacity (10) 0.00 3.00 1.48 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.05 1.00
(11) 0.00 3.00 1.39 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.17 0.21 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.06 0.38 1.00
(12) 0.00 3.00 1.05 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.43 0.45 1.00
(13) 0.00 3.00 1.41 0.03 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.47 0.25 0.36 1.00
Science-push absorptive capacity (14) 0.00 3.00 0.48 0.18 0.15 0.37 0.30 0.31 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.06 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.16 1.00
(15) 0.00 3.00 0.56 0.13 0.14 0.31 0.23 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.09 0.18 0.21 0.15 0.21 0.57 1.00
Product innovation output (16) 0.00 3.00 1.67 0.06 0.14 0.13 0.22 0.27 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.19 0.29 0.21 0.22 0.16 0.15 1.00
(17) 0.00 3.00 1.59 0.05 0.17 0.11 0.18 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.27 0.20 0.22 0.14 0.16 0.65 1.00
Process innovation output (18) 0.00 3.00 1.55 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.19 0.16 0.09 0.23 0.10 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.14 0.28 0.31 1.00
(19) 0.00 3.00 1.72 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.16 0.13 0.03 0.24 0.10 0.11 0.17 0.07 0.09 0.24 0.34 0.66 1.00
(20) 0.00 3.00 1.36 0.03 0.13 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.05 0.26 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.16 0.24 0.33 0.61 0.68 1.00
(21) 0.00 3.00 1.12 0.04 0.13 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.11 0.09 0.23 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.27 0.32 0.50 0.51 0.65 1.00

Legend: (1) Extramural R&D*; (2) training of personnel related to innovation projects; (3) innovation co-operation*; (4) innovative expenditures for intramural research and experimental development*; (5) number of employees
involved in intramural R&D activities*; (6) new or significantly changed corporate strategies; (7) advanced management techniques within the enterprise; (8) new or significantly changed organizational structures; (9)
significantly changed enterprise’s marketing concepts or strategies; (10) information from suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software; (11) information from clients or customers; (12) Information from
competitors within the same industry; (13) information from fairs and exhibitions; (14) information from universities or other higher education institutions; (15) information from government or private non-profit research
institutes; (16) increased range of goods or services; (17) increased market or market share; (18) improved production flexibility; (19) increased production capacity; (20) reduced labour costs per produced unit; (21) reduced
materials and energy per produced unit.
Note: N ¼ 2422. Correlations higher than 0.06 are significant at the 0.01 level. Correlations higher than 0.04 are significant at the 0.05 level. *The following items were transformed by employing the square root transformation
because of extreme skew and/or kurtosis: 1, 3, 4, and 5.
Table 7
Measurement items’ descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for the Czech sample.

Correlations
Construct Item Min Max Mean
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)

/ (1) 0.00 969.88 29.25 1.00

/ (2) 0.00 1.00 0.36 0.18 1.00

N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872

/ (3) 0.00 2.83 0.53 0.33 0.18 1.00
Internal R&D (4) 0.00 1233.83 165.04 0.31 0.28 0.30 1.00
(5) 0.00 11.52 1.92 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.71 1.00

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Attitude towards change (6) 0.00 1.00 0.49 0.15 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.23 1.00
(7) 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.25 0.27 0.54 1.00
(8) 0.00 1.00 0.47 0.12 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.35 0.42 1.00
(9) 0.00 1.00 0.37 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.38 0.36 0.34 1.00
Demand-pull absorptive capacity (10) 0.00 3.00 1.53 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.10 1.00
(11) 0.00 3.00 1.99 0.08 0.15 0.12 0.20 0.22 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.43 1.00
(12) 0.00 3.00 1.42 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.21 0.25 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.51 1.00
(13) 0.00 3.00 1.54 0.09 0.19 0.08 0.23 0.26 0.19 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.43 0.32 0.46 1.00
Science-push absorptive capacity (14) 0.00 3.00 0.62 0.21 0.14 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.14 0.12 0.05 0.04 0.30 0.18 0.33 0.29 1.00
(15) 0.00 3.00 0.31 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.22 0.15 0.27 0.23 0.54 1.00
Product innovation output (16) 0.00 3.00 1.86 0.15 0.21 0.25 0.31 0.41 0.18 0.16 0.03 0.13 0.25 0.30 0.28 0.34 0.24 0.21 1.00
(17) 0.00 3.00 1.59 0.13 0.20 0.19 0.30 0.35 0.23 0.16 0.08 0.14 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.32 0.26 0.23 0.71 1.00
Process innovation output (18) 0.00 3.00 1.36 0.10 0.23 0.18 0.20 0.28 0.21 0.23 0.09 0.17 0.33 0.26 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.25 0.39 0.47 1.00
(19) 0.00 3.00 1.35 0.04 0.20 0.15 0.09 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.04 0.05 0.29 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.16 0.35 0.38 0.63 1.00
(20) 0.00 3.00 1.31 0.08 0.22 0.18 0.21 0.26 0.22 0.23 0.09 0.19 0.28 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.24 0.22 0.40 0.47 0.66 0.62 1.00
(21) 0.00 3.00 1.21 0.06 0.22 0.18 0.29 0.33 0.23 0.26 0.19 0.20 0.28 0.25 0.31 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.44 0.52 0.57 0.47 0.74 1.00

Legend: (1) Extramural R&D*; (2) training of personnel related to innovation projects; (3) innovation co-operation*; (4) innovative expenditures for intramural research and experimental development*; (5) number of employees
involved in intramural R&D activities*; (6) new or significantly changed corporate strategies; (7) advanced management techniques within the enterprise; (8) new or significantly changed organizational structures; (9)
significantly changed enterprise’s marketing concepts or strategies; (10) information from suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software; (11) information from clients or customers; (12) information from
competitors within the same industry; (13) information from fairs and exhibitions; (14) information from universities or other higher education institutions; (15) information from government or private non-profit research
institutes; (16) increased range of goods or services; (17) increased market or market share; (18) improved production flexibility; (19) increased production capacity; (20) reduced labour costs per produced unit; (21) reduced
materials and energy per produced unit.
Note: N ¼ 641. Correlations higher than 0.10 are significant at the 0.01 level. Correlations higher than 0.08 are significant at the 0.05 level. *The following items were transformed by employing the square root transformation
because of extreme skew and/or kurtosis: 1, 3, 4, and 5.

869
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
870 N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872
on robust datasets from two different countries, which increases
its validity and enables a cross-national comparison. Besides, to
our knowledge this is the first study on absorptive capacity to
simultaneously test (using structural equation modeling) the
influence of several suggested determinants, which not only offers
a good foundation for the future research, but also enables a more
accurate estimation of the specific determinant’s importance. The
results, presented in Section 4, show that the proposed model has
a good fit. Internal R&D, training of personnel, innovation co-
operation and attitude towards change all proved to be statisti-
cally significant determinants of absorptive capacity; however,
their importance differs for demand-pull or science-push compo-
nent and between the two studied countries. Therefore, we can
conclude that measuring absorptive capacity should not be
simplified into using just one determinant as a proxy.
The most important determinants of science-push absorptive
capacity are internal R&D and innovation co-operation, while in
Spain attitude towards change and training of personnel related to
innovation projects are also statistically significant. On the other
hand, the most important determinants of demand-pull absorp-
tive capacity in both studied countries are internal R&D, training
of personnel and attitude towards change. Despite quite different
characteristics of the studied countries—the Czech republic being
a post-transition country and one of the new EU members which
is steadily growing and belongs to the ‘‘catching up’’ group
according to innovativeness; and Spain, an old EU member
country, but experiencing slow economic growth and low level
of development of the Innovation System—the research results
show quite small differences in the model. The aim of this
research was however not to study those differences, but to
demonstrate a cross-cultural validity of the model, which was
also achieved. While we can speculate about the influence of the
different innovation systems on the results, the tested model and
the available data in fact do not offer any information about the
reasons behind those differences; therefore this would make an
interesting topic for future research.
Table 8
Selected Third Community Innovation Survey questionnaire items.
1. Sources of information for innovationa
Information source
Market sources Suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software
Clients or customers
Competitors and other enterprises from the same industry
Institutional sources Universities or other higher education institutes
Government or private non-profit research institutes
Other sources Fairs, exhibitions
2. Effects of innovationb
Effects of innovation
Product-oriented effects Increased range of goods or services
Increased market or market share
Process-oriented effects Improved production flexibility
Increased production capacity
Reduced labour costs per produced unit
Reduced materials and energy per produced unit
a
The main sources of information needed for suggesting new innovation projects or contributing to the implementation of existing projects are asked in this question.
Please indicate the degree of importance attached to various alternative information sources.
b
The result of innovation activity may have different effects for your enterprise. For the various alternatives, please indicate the degree of impact by innovation activity
undertaken by your enterprise.
Research results also show that the studied determinants
explain the variance of demand-pull absorptive capacity to a
lower extent than science-push absorptive capacity. Since the
studied determinants are based on the literature review this
indicates, that the previous research, even though it perceived
absorptive capacity as an unidimensional construct, it actually
mostly captured the science-push absorptive capacity component.
Therefore, the demand-pull absorptive capacity determinants
remain an important challenge for the future research. The
importance of future demand-pull absorptive capacity research
is further demonstrated by the fact that the demand-pull
component proved to have a much greater impact on product
and process innovation output than the science-push component,
even though they are both statistically significant and important.
The research results are in favor of those who argue that an
organization cannot buy its absorptive capacity (e.g. Cohen and
Levinthal, 1990), since the extramural R&D did not prove to be a
statistically significant determinant of either demand-pull or
science-push absorptive capacity.
Due to the cross-culturally confirmed importance of absorptive
capacity for innovation, and thus also for the competitiveness and
growth of organizations as well as whole economies, this should
become an important issue in future innovation policy discus-
sions. Since demand-pull absorptive capacity proved to be even
more important than science-push absorptive capacity, this raises
the question of the appropriateness of current innovation policies,
which usually put emphasis only on the knowledge creation
(R&D) side, and practically no emphasis on raising the awareness
about the importance of information available on the market, and
improving the accessibility of this information.
Despite certain limitations of this study (a cross-section
analysis, the use of an existing database, not designed specifically
for the purpose of absorptive capacity research), the research
results show that a greater emphasis should be put on the topic
of absorptive capacity not only by policymakers but also by
researchers. Future research should, however, acknowledge our
Importance
High Medium Low Not used
Degree of impact
High Medium Low Not relevant
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872
finding that absorptive capacity cannot be simply measured based
on the implicit assumption that it equals R&D or any other single
determinant. Furthermore, the future research should also take
into consideration the finding that the absorptive capacity is not a
unidimensional concept and that it is thus not adequate to
measure it as such.
Appendix 1
See Tables 6–8.
References
Aage, T., 2003a. Absorptive capabilities in industrial districts: the role of
knowledge creation and learning and boundary spanning mechanisms. In:
DRUID Summer Conference 2003 on Creating, Sharing and Transferring
Knowledge: The Role of Geography, Institutions and Organizations. Danish
research unit for industrial dynamics, Copenhagen.
Aage, T., 2003b. Absorptive capacity of industrial districts. In: DRUID Academy
Winter 2003 PhD Conference. Danish research unit for industrial dynamics,
Aalborg.
Adler, J.H., 1965. Absorptive Capacity: The Concept and Its Determinants. Brookings
Institution, Washington.
Alvesson, M., 2002. Understanding Organizational Culture. Sage, London, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Arbussa, A., Coenders, G., 2007. Innovation activities, use of appropriation
instruments and absorptive capacity: evidence from Spanish firms. Research
Policy 36, 1545–1558.
Arundel, A., Kabla, I., 1998. What percentage of innovations are patented?
Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy 27, 127–141.
Becker, W., Dietz, J., 2004. R&D cooperation and innovation activities of
firms—evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy 33,
209–223.
Becker, W., Peters, J., 2000. Technological opportunities, absorptive capacities, and
innovation. In: Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsreihe. Augsburg, pp. 255–289.
Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B., 2004. Cooperative R&D and firm performance.
Research Policy 33, 1477–1492.
Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D.G., 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88, 588–606.
Bentler, P.M., Wu, E.J.C., 2006. EQS 6.1 for Windows. Multivariate Software, Encino.
Bernaards, C.A., Sijtsma, K., 2000. Influence of imputation and EM methods on
factor analysis when item nonresponse in questionnaire data is nonignorable.
Multivariate Behavioral Research 35, 321–364.
Bernstein, B., Singh, P.J., 2006. An integrated innovation process model based on
practices of Australian biotechnology firms. Technovation 26, 561–572.
Braga, H., Willmore, L., 1991. Technological imports and technological effort: an
analysis of their determinants in Brazilian firms. Journal of Industrial
Economics 39, 421–432.
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit.
Sociological Methods Research 21, 230–258.
Byrne, B.M., 2006. Structural equation modeling with EQS: basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., 2002. R&D cooperation and spillovers: some empirical
evidence from Belgium. The American Economic Review 92, 1169–1184.
Chesbrough, H.W., 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and
Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Coad, A., Rao, R., 2008. Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: a quantile
regression approach. Research Policy 37, 633–648.
Cockburn, I.M., Henderson, R.M., 1998. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior,
and the organization of research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial
Economics 46, 157–182.
Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128–152.
Cormican, K., O’Sullivan, D., 2004. Auditing best practice for effective product
innovation management. Technovation 24, 819–829.
Criscuolo, P., Narula, R., 2008. A novel approach to national technological
accumulation and absorptive capacity: aggregating Cohen and Levinthal.
European Journal of Development Research 20, 56–73.
Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika 16, 297–334.
Dahlman, C., Nelson, R., 1995. Social absorption capability, national innovation
systems and economic development. In: Koo, B.H., Perkins, D.H. (Eds.), Social
Capability and Long-Term Economic Growth. Macmillan, London.
Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L., 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage
What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
del Carmen Haro-Domı́nguez, M., Arias-Aranda, D., Javier Lloréns-Montes, F., Ruı́z
Moreno, A., 2007. The impact of absorptive capacity on technological
acquisitions engineering consulting companies. Technovation 27, 417–425.
Downey, R.G., King, C.V., 1998. Missing data in likert ratings: a comparison of
replacement methods. Journal of General Psychology 125, 175–191.
871
Escribano, Á., Fosfuri, A., Tribo, J.A., 2005. Managing knowledge spillovers: the
impact of absorptive capacity on innovation performance [Working paper].
URL: /http://www.fep.up.pt/conferences/earie2005/cd_rom/Session%20V/V.M/
ESCRIBAN.pdfS.
Fabrizio, K., 2006. Absorptive capacity and innovation: evidence from pharma-
ceutical and biotechnology firms [Working paper]. URL: /http://gbspapers.
library.emory.edu/archive/00000253/S.
Fagerberg, J., 2001. Europe at the crossroads: the challenge from innovation-based
growth. In: Archibugi, D., Lundvall, B.-Å. (Eds.), The Globalizing Learning
Economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 45–62.
Fagerberg, J., 2004. Innovation: a guide to the literature. In: Fagerberg, J., Mowery,
D.C., Nelson, R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 1–26.
Floyd, F.J., Widaman, K.F., 1995. Factor analysis in the development and refinement
of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment 7, 286–299.
Freeman, C., 1982. The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Pinter, London.
Freeman, C., Soete, L., 1994. Work for All or Mass Unemployment? Computerised
Technical Change into The Twenty-First Century. Pinter, London.
Freeman, C., Soete, L., 1997. The Economics of Industrial Innovation. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Galanakis, K., 2006. Innovation process. Make sense using systems thinking.
Technovation 26, 1222–1232.
Giuliani, E., 2003. Knowledge in the air and its uneven distribution: a story of a
Chilean wine cluster. In: DRUID Academy Winter 2003 PhD Conference. Danish
research unit for industrial dynamics, Aalborg.
Giuliani, E., Bell, M., 2005. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and
innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy 34, 47–68.
Glass, A.J., Saggi, K., 1998. International technology transfer and the technology
gap. Journal of Development Economics 55, 369–398.
Godin, B., 2003. The rise of innovation surveys: measuring a fuzzy concept. Project
on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics. Working Paper No. 16. URL:
/http://www2.sfu.ca/innocom/docs/innoCom2003Slides/GodinInnovation.pdfS.
Goldenberg, J., Lehmann, D.R., Mazursky, D., 2001. The idea itself and the
circumstances of its emergence as predictors of new product success.
Management Science 47, 69–84.
Gopalakrishnan, S., Damanpour, F., 1997. A review of innovation research in
economics, sociology and technology management. Omega 25, 15–28.
Griffith, R., Redding, S., Reenen, J.V., 2004. Mapping the two faces of R&D:
productivity growth in a panel of OECD Industries. Review of Economics and
Statistics 86, 883–895.
Grunfeld, L.A., 2003. Meet me halfway but don’t rush: absorptive capacity
and strategic R&D investment revisited. International Journal of Industrial
Organization 21, 1091–1109.
Grunfeld, L.A., 2004. The multiple faces of R&D: absorptive capacity effects and
different sources of spillovers. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., Zaheer, A., 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management
Journal 21, 203–215.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., 2005. Market value and patent citations. Rand
Journal of Economics 36, 16–38.
Hippel, E.v., 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
Hu, L.-t., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling 6, 1–55.
Hung, S.-W., Tang, R.-H., 2008. Factors affecting the choice of technology
acquisition mode: an empirical analysis of the electronic firms of Japan, Korea
and Taiwan. Technovation 28, 551–563.
Jansen, J.J.P., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., 2005. Managing potential and
realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter?
Academy of Management Journal 48, 999–1015.
Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.Ĺ., 2007. Forms of knowledge and
modes of innovation. Research Policy 36, 680–693.
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., 1996. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Scientific
Software International, Chicago.
Kamien, M.I., Zang, I., 2000. Meet me halfway: research joint ventures and
absorptive capacity. International Journal of Industrial Organization 18,
995–1012.
Kanter, R.M., 1985. The Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work. Unwin
Paperbacks, London.
Keller, W., 1996. Absorptive capacity: on the creation and acquisition of technology
in development. Journal of Development Economics 49, 199–227.
Kim, L., 1997. The dynamics of Samsung’s technological learning in semiconduc-
tors. California Management Review 39, 86–100.
Kim, L., 1998. Crisis construction and organizational learning: capability building
in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science 9, 506–521.
Kleinknecht, A., van Montfort, K., Brouwer, E., 2002. The non-trivial choice between
innovation indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 11,
109–121.
Kneller, R., Stevens, P.A., 2006. Frontier technology and absorptive capacity:
evidence from OECD manufacturing industries. Oxford Bulletin of Economics &
Statistics 68, 1–21.
Knudsen, M.P., Dalum, B., Villumsen, G., 2001. Two faces of absorptive capacity
creation: access and utilisation of knowledge. In: Nelson and Winter
Conference Organised by DRUID. Danish research unit for industrial dynamics,
Aalborg, Denmark.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
872 N. Murovec, I. Prodan / Technovation 29 (2009) 859–872
Kotter, J.P., 1996. Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Lane, P.J., Koka, B.R., Pathak, S., 2006. The reification of absorptive capacity: a
critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management
Review 31, 833–863.
Lane, P.J., Lubatkin, M., 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational
learning. Strategic Management Journal 19, 461–477.
Leahy, D., Neary, P.J., 2007. Absorptive capacity, R&D spillovers, and public policy.
International Journal of Industrial Organization 25, 1089–1108.
Lim, K., 2006. The many faces of absorptive capacity: spillovers of copper
interconnect technology for semiconductor chips [Working paper]. URL:
/http://ssrn.com/abstract=562862S.
List, F., 1841. The National System of Political Economy. Longmans, Green and Co.,
London.
Lundvall, B.-A., Johnson, B., Andersen, E.S., Dalum, B., 2002. National systems of
production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy 31, 213–231.
Mancusi, M.L., 2004. International spillovers and absorptive capacity: a cross-
country, cross-sector analysis based on European patents and citations
[Working paper]. URL: /http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/ei/ei35.pdfS.
Mangematin, V., Nesta, L., 1999. What kind of knowledge can a firm absorb?
International Journal of Technology Management 18, 149–172.
Marsh, D., Oxley, L., 2005. Modelling innovative activity in the New Zealand
biotechnology sector. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 69, 103–112.
Marsh, H.W., Hocevar, D., 1985. Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the
study of self-concept. Psychological Bulletin 97, 562–582.
Marsh, H.W., Hocevar, D., 1988. A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-
multimethod analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology 73, 107–117.
Mowery, D.C., 1984. Firm structure, government policy, and the organization of
industrial research: Great Britain. Business History Review 58, 504–531.
Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., 1999. Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven
Industries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E., 1995. Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: the
role of national innovation systems. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19, 67–93.
Nelson, R.R., Wolff, E.N., 1997. Factors behind cross-industry differences in
technical progress. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 8, 205–220.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Oden, H.W., 1997. Managing Corporate Culture, Innovation, and Intrapreneurship.
Quorum Books, Westport.
Parisi, M.L., Schiantarelli, F., Sembenelli, A., 2006. Productivity, innovation and
R&D: micro evidence for Italy. European Economic Review 50, 2037–2061.
Porter, M.E., 1998. The Competitive Advantage of Nations: With A New
Introduction. The Free Press, New York.
Reise, S.P., Widaman, K.F., Pugh, R.H., 1993. Confirmatory factor analysis and item
response theory. Psychological Bulletin 114, 552–566.
Rejeb, H.B., Morel-Guimarăes, L., Boly, V., Assiélou, N.D.G., 2008. Measuring
innovation best practices: improvement of an innovation index integrating
threshold and synergy effects. Technovation 28, 838–854.
Rocha, F., 1999. Inter-firm technological cooperation: effects of absorptive capacity,
firm-size and specialization. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8,
253–271.
Roth, P.L., Switzer, F.S., Switzer, D.M., 1999. Missing data in multiple item scales: a
Monte Carlo analysis of missing data techniques. Organizational Research
Methods 2, 211–232.
Rubin, D.B., 1976. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63, 581–592.
Schmidt, T., 2005. What determines absorptive capacity. In: DRUID Summer
Conference 2005 on Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations,
Networks and Systems. Danish research unit for industrial dynamics,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Schmookler, J., 1962. Economic sources of inventive activity. The Journal of
Economic History 22, 1–20.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into
Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and The Business Cycle. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, 255pp.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1939. Business cycles: a theoretical, historical, and statistical
analysis of the capitalist process, 461.
Shane, S.A., 2001. Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management
Science 47, 205–220.
Shapira, P., Youtie, J., Yogeesvaran, K., Jaafar, Z., 2006. Knowledge economy
measurement: methods, results and insights from the Malaysian knowledge
content study. Research Policy 35, 1522–1537.
Sharma, S., Durvasula, S., Dillon, W.R., 1989. Some results on the behavior of
alternate covariance structure estimation procedures in the presence of non-
normal data. Journal of Marketing Research 26, 214–221.
Shook, C.L., Ketchen, D.J., Hult, G.T.M., Kacmar, K.M., 2004. An assessment of the
use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research.
Strategic Management Journal 25, 397–404.
Siddharthan, N.S., 1992. Transaction costs, technology transfer, and in-house R&D:
a study of the Indian private corporate sector. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 18, 265–271.
Singh, J., 1995. Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of
International Business Studies 26, 597–619.
Smith, K., 2005. Measuring innovation. In: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R.
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York,
pp. 148–178.
Stock, G.N., Greis, N.P., Fischer, W.A., 2001. Absorptive capacity and new product
development. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 12,
77–91.
Szulanski, G., 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of
best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17, 27–43.
Tether, B.S., 2002. Who co-operates for innovation, and why: an empirical analysis.
Research Policy 31, 947–967.
Todorova, G., Durisin, B., 2007. Absorptive capacity: valuing a reconceptualization.
Academy of Management Review 32, 774–786.
Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M.A., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Sharkey, T.W., 2006. Absorptive
capacity: enhancing the assimilation of time-based manufacturing practices.
Journal of Operations Management 24, 692–710.
Utterback, J.M., Abernathy, W.J., 1975. A dynamic model of process and product
innovation. Omega 3, 639–656.
Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., De Boer, M., 1999. Coevolution of firm
absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: organizational forms and
combinative capabilities. Organization Science 10, 551–568.
Vandenberg, R.J., Lance, C.E., 2000. A review and synthesis of the measurement
invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 3, 4–70.
Veugelers, R., 1997. Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing.
Research Policy 26, 303–315.
Vinding, A.L., 2006. Absorptive capacity and innovative performance: a human
capital approach. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 15, 507–517.
Walsh, V., 1993. Invention and innovation in the chemical industry: demand-pull
or discovery-push? Research Policy 22, 115–116.
World Bank, 2007. Building Knowledge Economies: Advanced Strategies for
Development. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Xia, T., Roper, S., 2008. From capability to connectivity—absorptive capacity and
exploratory alliances in biopharmaceutical firms: a US-Europe comparison.
Technovation 28, 776–785.
Zahra, S.A., George, G., 2002. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization,
and extension. Academy of Management Review 27, 185–203.