Knowledge sharing in supply chain networks: Effects of collaborative innovation activities and capability on innovation performance

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Knowledge sharing in supply chain networks: Effects of collaborative innovation activities and capability on innovation performance ⁎

Changfeng Wanga,b, , Qiying Hub a b

School of Economics and Management, Shandong Jiaotong University, Jinan, China School of Management, Fudan University, Shanhai, China

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Collaborative innovation Supply chain networks Knowledge sharing Collaborative innovation capability Innovation performance

Building on knowledge management and innovation capability theories, this paper aims to reveal the mechanisms of collaborative innovation processes by investigating the complex relationships among critical factors influencing firm's innovation performance in supply chain networks. Using hierarchical Multiple Regression (MR) and Moderated Multiple Regression (MMR) methods, results from a survey of 236 firms in China indicated that there are significant positive relationships between collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, collaborative innovation capability, and firm's innovation performance. Moreover, it is expected that knowledge sharing plays a partial mediating role in the relationships between collaborative innovation activities and firm's innovation performance. Collaborative innovation capability exhibited a moderating effect on collaborative innovation activities - innovation performance relationship. These results contribute to collaborative innovation process management by offering a nuanced conceptualization of the collaborative innovation - performance relationship in supply chain networks.

1. Introduction With increasing pressure to develop new products and services quickly and efficiently, firms have strived to foster greater supply chain collaborative innovation to maintain and improve their long-term performance (Gloor, 2006; Nieto and Santamaría, 2007; Davis and Eisenhardt, 2011; An et al., 2014; Burg et al., 2014; Bäck and Kohtamäki, 2015; Gao et al., 2015; Isaksson et al., 2016; Yasuyuki et al., 2016). Collaborative innovation denotes two or more supply chain members, such as suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, service providers, and even customers, sharing knowledge with each other and working jointly to plan and execute R&D in supply chain networks (Powell et al., 1996; Swink, 2006; Cao and Zhang, 2011). Extant research has suggested that collaborative innovation can stimulate mutual creativity, reduce R&D costs and risks, and improve innovation performance (Faems et al., 2005; Mishra and Shah, 2009; Davis and Eisenhardt, 2011; Mishra et al., 2015). Yet not all firms have truly capitalized on the potential benefits thereof (Cao and Zhang, 2011). We still lack insights into the mechanisms of firm's collaborative innovation – performance relationships in supply chain networks. Inside a multiproduct supply chain network, most of the collaborative innovation processes leverage the skills and resources of the partners to exploit assets in a manner that neither could accomplish

⁎

independently. It thus becomes possible for firms to learn from each other and benefit from new knowledge developed by collaborative innovation activities (Burg et al., 2014). A significant amount of research has demonstrated that knowledge sharing among these firms provides opportunities for mutual learning and at the same time enables all members in a supply chain network to work together in a way that creates truly new value (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000; Hult et al., 2004; Cheng et al., 2008; Nasr et al., 2015; Tan et al., 2016). However, some prior researchers have suggested that knowledge is possessed by individual firms, and cannot be easily shared across different members in a supply chain network (Hult et al., 2006; Dyer and Hatch, 2006). While others contend that knowledge is usually embedded in the innovation process and often “sticky” or “leaky” and difficult to spread (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000; Hansen et al., 2005; Le Dain and Merminod, 2014). Hence, without high level of knowledge sharing, a desired level of innovation performance cannot be guaranteed only by participating in collaborative innovation activities. Collaborative activities seem to have great potential for acquiring valuable knowledge and enhancing innovation performance, but further investigation is needed to understand this more fully. To enrich the mechanisms and deepen our understanding of the nature of firm's collaborative innovation - performance relationships, this study introduces another key variable, collaborative innovation

Correspondence to: School of Economics and Management, Shandong Jiaotong University, Jinan City, China. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (C. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.12.002 Received 28 November 2015; Received in revised form 20 September 2017; Accepted 1 December 2017 0166-4972/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Wang, C., Technovation (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.12.002

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

isolated variables with less attention paid to the integrative effects of these variables. In this study, we focus on the interplay between collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, and collaborative innovation capability. Firstly, involvement in collaborative innovation activities is regarded as a prerequisite of higher level innovation performance (Singh et al., 2016). These interactive activities may imply access to valuable knowledge, which is difficult to capture by firms acting alone. Importantly, such knowledge can be a source of successful new product or service R&D (Soosay et al., 2008; Cruz-González et al., 2015). Secondly, knowledge sharing is the core process of collaborative innovation projects (Gupta and Polonsky, 2014). It serves as a mediator between collaborative innovation activities and innovation performance. Finally, collaborative innovation capability is likely to moderate the effect of collaborative innovation activities and knowledge sharing on innovation performance (Carlile, 2004; Blomqvist and Levy, 2006). In other words, the moderator can strengthen or enlarge the performance increasing effects of the other two variables. In the following sections, we develop arguments for hypotheses concerning these issues, starting with the individual effects of these variables, and following that, on the role of interaction effects of mediator and moderator.

capability, for explaining how collaborative innovation activities and knowledge sharing are materialized into innovation performance. Previous studies have found collaborative innovation capability enables firms to successfully apply or replicate knowledge dispersed by interactive activities among individual firms and their supply chain networks (Lawson and Samson, 2001; Blomqvist and Levy, 2006; Mishra and Shah, 2009). This capability can not only enhance knowledge sharing among different firms but can also significantly contribute to increasing volume, variety, and engagement in innovation activities (Faems et al., 2005). Collaborative innovation capability plays an essential role in knowledge sharing by embedding innovation processes among supply chain network members to achieve favorable innovation results. In sum, although prior literature has highlighted the separate importance of knowledge sharing and collaborative innovation capability for increasing innovation performance, much less attention has been focused on exploring the effectiveness of knowledge sharing and innovation capability from a holistic perspective. Moreover, little is known about how collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, and collaborative innovation capability inter-relate to mediate different levels of innovation performance in supply chain networks. Our study addresses this research gap by investigating the following questions: How do collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, and collaborative innovation capability simultaneously affect firm's innovation performance? Or, more specifically, how can firms gain useful knowledge efficiently and effectively from other partners in the supply chain network to enhance their innovation performance? This study posits that collaborative innovation activities may offer a learning opportunity for the participating firms in a supply chain network, but the learning outcome (innovation performance in this study) depends on the effectiveness of knowledge sharing and the level of collaborative innovation capability of individual firms (Lawson and Samson, 2001; Calantone et al., 2002; Blomqvist and Levy, 2006; Mishra and Shah, 2009; Saunila et al., 2014). Accordingly, we offer a more nuanced conceptualization of the collaborative innovation - performance relationship in two important ways. First, we demonstrate empirically that knowledge sharing partially mediates the relationship between collaborative innovation activities and firm's innovation performance. This means that participating in collaborative innovation activities contributes more to innovation performance under higher knowledge sharing levels. Second, we find support to suggest that the positively relationship between collaborative innovation activities and firm's innovation performance is stronger with higher levels of collaborative innovation capability. This suggests the existence of a moderator. These findings illustrate the nature of the collaborative innovation process and offer important implications for collaborative innovation management in supply chain networks. The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows. The next section outlines and discusses relevant literature, providing a detailed exposition of pertinent of theory, and sets out the hypotheses of this study. Next, our methodology is elaborated before a presentation and exploration of the results generated. Finally, we offer conclusions in the last section.

2.1. Collaborative innovation activities Collaborative innovation in supply chain networks has been viewed as an R&D process, whereby two or more supply chain partners work together toward introducing new products or services (Cao and Zhang, 2011). Supplier involving in collaborative innovation activities is regarded as one of the reasons why Toyota was able to launch new innovation products faster, with shorter R&D times and lower R&D costs (Liker et al., 1996; Lawson et al., 2015). From the present supply chain literature, it is clear that firms can improve their innovation performance by developing interfirm collaborations with various supply chain partners (Faems et al., 2005). There are two specific reasons why participating interfirm collaborative innovation activities in supply chain networks can contribute to firms’ innovation performance. First, collaborative innovation activities constitute information channel resources that reduce the amount of time and investment required to gather information (Hildreth and Kimble, 2004). In the past, firms have developed “integrated” R&D approaches by themselves. Suppliers, customers, and other supply chain partners may cooperate with R&D efforts (when they are asked to do such favor), but their interactions are far beyond the reach of true collaborative innovation (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002; Chapman and Corso, 2005). Information channels among them are almost closed or unidirectional. A truly collaborative innovation project involves rich forms of bi-directional communications inside the collaborative R&D team. Such communications, including mutual technical support, will stimulate and facilitate firm's new innovative activities by providing the external information necessary to generate new products (Soosay et al., 2008; Cruz-González et al., 2015). Second, and more importantly, firms participating in collaborative innovation projects is regard as the prerequisite part of a learning process, in which firms discover new opportunities and obtain new knowledge through interacting with others in the supply chain network (Chapman and Corso, 2005; Soosay et al., 2008; Cao and Zhang, 2011; Cruz-González et al., 2015). At the same time, the learning process will then benefit from access to new knowledge necessary to resolve design and manufacturing problems (Soosay et al., 2008). Participating such projects has also been recognized as the critical mechanism for knowledge combination (Singh et al., 2016) and exchange to further achieve favorable collaboration (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005). To summarize, innovative ideas are often at the nexus of collaborative innovation activities. To foster innovation, information and knowledge should be deliberately distributed in the supply chain network. More collaborative innovation activities will provide more channels for distributing information and knowledge in such a way as

2. Theory and Hypotheses We ground our model development in the knowledge management and innovation capability theories because these theories are complementary in focusing on the critical factors affecting firm's collaborative innovation performance. In general, scholars have recognized the variables of collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, and collaborative innovation capability as the source of firm's innovation performance (Gloor, 2006; Swink, 2006; Blomqvist and Levy, 2006; Mishra and Shah, 2009; Cao and Zhang, 2011; Burg et al., 2014). However, most of prior research has tended to emphasize the effects of 2

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

George, 2016). We formalize this argument in the following hypothesis:

to stimulate and support innovative products. A leading role in collaborative innovation projects is usually associated with higher innovation performance of individual firms within a supply chain network. A supply chain firm that participates in collaborative innovation activities is also likely to produce more innovations (Lawson et al., 2015; Schleimer and Faems, 2016).

H2. Knowledge sharing is positively associated with innovation performance. 2.3. Mediating effect of knowledge sharing

H1. Firms that engage in more collaborative innovation activities exhibit higher innovation performance.

Knowledge sharing in collaborative innovation activities often demands resources, patience, and numerous iterations (Ritala et al., 2015). Firms need to repeatedly engage in such collaborative innovation activities to avail of higher levels of knowledge sharing and performance. Knowledge sharing may also serve as a mediator between collaborative innovation activities and innovation performance. Few previous studies have addressed this point. Specifically, we suggest that knowledge sharing is a mechanism that helps to realize the knowledge benefits of collaborative innovation activities for innovation performance because functionally diverse supply chain partners can acquire information, know-how and perspectives from each other through knowledge sharing (Soosay et al., 2008; Cruz-González et al., 2015). More collaborative innovation activities can build closer ties and generate mutual trust between partners (Dodgson, 1993). These activities provide supply chain partners the opportunity to access diverse valuable knowledge resources in the network (Hall and Andriani, 1998; Soosay et al., 2008; Cruz-González et al., 2015). While those valuable Knowledge is frequently characterized by tacitness, and it is difficult to spread across different partners (Grant, 1996; Hansen, 1999; Huang and Li, 2009). To fully leverage the tacitness knowledge resided in individual supply chain partners, the firm needs to develop higher level of knowledge sharing to generate cross-fertilization of ideas (Cheung et al., 2016). Through knowledge sharing, knowledge accumulated by close contacts and interactions (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000) can be diffused throughout the whole supply chain networks and be converted into common language and memory shared by supply chain members (Myers and Cheung, 2008). When knowledge can be shared effectively, supply chain members are more inclined to utilize knowledge together to develop new product (Sakakibara, 2003), improve efficiency and further achieve favorable collaborative innovation results and performance. Finally, supply chain partners can also develop a better understanding of, and response to, the market and competitive environment by knowledge sharing in the same collaborative innovation platform (Malhotra et al., 2005; Cao and Zhang, 2011). They can easily bundle such knowledge and information into an integrated whole, bringing coordination effects and increase their innovation performance. At the same time, based on the previously described analysis, sharing knowledge effectively and efficiently drives innovation performance (Tsai, 2001; Lin, 2007; Sáenz et al., 2009; Gupta and Polonsky, 2014). Therefore, knowledge sharing serves to improve firms’ innovation performance. Collectively, the above analyses provide a basis for the proposition of a mediating role of knowledge sharing in the collaborative innovation activities–innovation performance relationship (Huang and Li, 2009).

2.2. Knowledge sharing The observation that collaborative innovation activities have considerable potential to contribute to the innovation performance of firms does not mean that all collaborations are successful. Knowledge is usually unevenly distributed throughout the supply chain network. Ernst and Kim (2002) find that knowledge transfer is not automatic; that is, it requires a significant level of knowledge sharing in a complex process to internalize disseminated knowledge. Knowledge sharing is one of the most important processes of knowledge management (Du et al., 2007). In a concluding article, Argote et al. (2003) posit a knowledge management framework where outcomes are delineated in terms of knowledge creation, retention and transfer. Knowledge sharing is the common thread in knowledge management processes. It creates opportunities to generate solutions and efficiencies that provide initial value to a successful innovation project (Lin, 2007). According to Wang and NOE (2010), knowledge sharing differs from the similar term “knowledge transfer.” In their paper, knowledge sharing is only one part of knowledge transfer which typically has been used to describe the objective movement of knowledge between different units, divisions, or organizations rather than individuals. While we use the term “knowledge sharing” as a more subjective behavior generated by one or more supply chain firms. Although knowledge sharing is often subject to false starts (ZellmerBruhn, 2003), a firm's innovation performance is enhanced when the firm communicates information, effective practices, and preferences with other partners in a supply chain network. For example, on the one hand, knowledge sharing offers an excellent opportunity to explore and test the potential value of the knowledge (Chesbrough, 2006) shared by the collaborative partner. On the other hand, sharing knowledge is an efficient way for a firm to signal to collaborative innovation partners that it possesses knowledge of potential value to them (Husted and Michailova, 2010). This signal increases the attractiveness of the firm as a potential collaborator in innovation-related interfirm projects (Ritala et al., 2015). Thus, firms that share knowledge in a supply chain network are more likely to establish and engage in more interfirm collaborative innovations with higher levels of performance. Knowledge sharing can be defined as a social interaction (Lin, 2007) that involves the exchange of R&D knowledge, experiences, and skills through the supply chain network. Groups of people from different supply chain firms share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a new product or service, and deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting in the context of an ongoing collaborative innovation project. They operate as “social learning systems,” where practitioners connect to solve technical problems, share new ideas, set new standards, and build new tools. Firms and researchers use a variety of terms to describe similar phenomena, such as “knowledge communities,” “thematic groups,” and “learning networks” (Liao et al., 2007). A community of knowledge sharing practitioners is a particular type of network that features peer-to-peer collaborative innovation activities to build new skills and manage the knowledge assets of the supply network. It is believed that sharing knowledge based on mutuality, trust, and respect yields long-term benefits, such as higher innovation performance and profit. Overall, knowledge sharing can generate opportunities for firms to accrue further profits from their innovative endeavors (Alnuaimi and

H3. Knowledge sharing mediates the collaborative innovation activities–innovation performance relationship such that collaborative innovation activities has a positive impact on knowledge sharing, which, in turn, has a positive impact on firms’ innovation performance. 2.4. Collaborative innovation capability Collaborative innovation capability is discussed in the recent literature on inter- and intra-organizational relationships (Blomqvist and Levy, 2006). Theoretical approaches thereof are closely related to dynamic capability (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Winter, 2003), combinative capability (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Van Den Bosch et al., 1999), and absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 3

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

1990; Zahra and George, 2002). Individual firms differ in their ability to assimilate and replicate new knowledge gained from collaborative innovation activities. Mishra and Shah (2009) labeled such ability “collaborative competence.” They argue that this ability to simultaneously collaborate with other firms in a supply chain network is a valuable—yet rare—firm-level capability. Followed their definition, we define collaborative innovation capability as the ability to simultaneously involve key supply chain partners in the innovation process and examine its effect on innovation performance (Mishra and Shah, 2009). It is not a new idea that an individual firm needs to externally integrate with their collaborative innovation partners in a supply chain network to achieve high innovation performance (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002; Soosay et al., 2008; Mishra and Shah, 2009). Soosay et al. (2008), using case studies, demonstrate that a firm's ability to work together with collaborative innovation partners enables them to integrate and link innovation processes for increased effectiveness as well as embark on innovation. Swink (2006) states that a firm's ability to collaborate is key to its innovative success. Building on Swink's work, Mishra and Shah (2009) also find empirical evidence for collaborative competence and its impact on collaborative innovation performance. They highlight the superior collaborative innovation benefits of simultaneously involving multiple partners in the project process. Firms in supply chain networks with high levels of collaborative innovation capabilities are likely to harness more new knowledge from other firms to facilitate their innovative activities. Collaborative innovation activities bring the suppliers and customers in a supply chain network together onto the same innovation platform; hence, these stakeholders understand and appreciate each other's concerns and work toward mutually agreed solutions (Mishra and Shah, 2009). Firms must have the capacity to absorb collaborative inputs in order to generate innovative products in this platform. Without such capacity, they cannot learn or transfer knowledge from one firm to another. Collective involvement in these collaborative innovation activities helps develop a common language of understanding around the critical interdependencies at boundaries in settings where innovation is desired (Carlile, 2004). This language, including other collaborative innovation capabilities, strengthens jointly produced knowledge and accommodates dynamic local interests, thereby enabling suitable resolution of new demands in the market. For instance, on the one hand, putting suppliers and customers together in the same collaborative innovation platform is beneficial because it allows the suppliers to integrate specific customer needs or requirements in a dynamic market into a successful new design. At the same time, manufacturers of this innovation platform find it easier and faster to initiate changes in manufacturing technology and adhere to customer specifications. On the other hand, the bespoke manufacturing of new technology is taken into consideration by suppliers when decisions are made regarding the complexity, dynamics and variety of components within new products or services (Mishra and Shah, 2009). As a result, if all supply chain members in a collaborative innovation project have higher levels of collaborative capabilities, then a higher level of innovation performance will be more easily achieved. These arguments lead us to propose the following hypothesis:

not enhance its innovation performance if it does not have enough capacity to exploit such knowledge in innovation activities. Regular participation in innovation activities and knowledge sharing increases the positive impact on the firm's innovation performance if the firm has adequate capacity with which to effectively transfer and make full use of knowledge from other partners. The interaction between collaborative innovation activities and innovation capability is critical to interfirm knowledge sharing (Tamer Cavusgil et al., 2003; Blomqvist and Levy, 2006). The more extensive the participatory innovation activities and sharing of knowledge, the broader the knowledge sources the firm has and the higher the innovation capacity needed to transfer and make full use of such knowledge to ensure higher innovation performance. Firms with a high level of collaborative innovation capability are also likely to dynamically respond to environmental changes (Lawson and Samson, 2001). This responsiveness is based on the ability of collaborating firms to quickly adapt and apply shared knowledge to innovate new features of a product or service (Blomqvist and Levy, 2006). Such benefits derived through collaborative innovation capability may not be immediately visible; however, the potential long-term rewards are enticing (Soosay et al., 2008) and eventually facilitate cooperation among participating members along the supply chain network to improve innovation performance. In summary, a high collaborative innovation capability can help supply chain partners combine complementary and related knowledge to achieve supernormal innovation performance. Tzabbar et al. (2008) suggest that bundling knowledge stocks can produce a combined return on knowledge that is greater than the sum of individual parts (1 + 1 > 2). This collaborative effect results from the process of making better use of knowledge in the supply chain network. Hence, H5a. Participating in innovation activities is more positively related to innovation performance when the firm has high collaborative innovation capability than when the firm has low innovation capability. H5b. Sharing knowledge is more positively related to innovation performance when the firm has high collaborative innovation capability than when the firm has low innovation capability. Fig. 1 summarizes the arguments regarding collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, collaborative innovation capability, particular control variables, and the hypotheses derived from them to assess innovation performance. 3. Methods We use Multiple Regression (MR) and Moderated Multiple Regression (MMR) (Wang and Han, 2011) to measure and test our conceptual framework and hypotheses using survey data. All H1(+)

H5a(+)

Collaborative Innovation Capability

H4(+)

H5b(+)

H4. A firm's collaborative innovation capability is positively related to its innovation performance.

Collaborative Innovation Activities

H3(+)

Knowledge Sharing

H2(+)

Innovation Performance

2.5. Moderating effect of collaborative innovation capability Control variables

Collaborative innovation capability is also likely to moderate the effect of innovation activities and knowledge sharing on a firm's innovation performance. Although participating in collaborative innovation activities provides important access to new knowledge and gives opportunities to share it, the impact on innovation performance may rely on the extent to which a firm can absorb and apply such new knowledge. A firm may be able to access certain new knowledge, but

Firm Age Number of Employees Annual Turnover

Fig. 1. Summary of hypotheses regarding knowledge sharing, collaborative innovation activities, innovation capability, and innovation performance.

4

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

descriptive and regression analyses are conducted using SPSS (22.0). The antecedents of the research framework in this study are collaborative innovation activities and knowledge sharing, and the consequence is innovation performance whereas the moderator is collaborative innovation capability. Knowledge sharing is also a mediator variable. The model is hypothesized, and estimates of the parameter values are used to develop an estimated regression equation between a dependent variable (innovation performance) and independent variables (collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, and collaborative innovation capability). A one-way ANOVA is applied to the control variables to determine whether they can be used in the regression equation.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for survey sample.

Firm age (years) ≤5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 6–10 > 10 Number of employees ≤ 100 101–1000 1001–10000 ＞ 10000 Annual turnover (million RMB Yuan) < 10 10–50 51–100 101–300 301–1000 > 1000 Total assets (million RMB Yuan) < 40 40–100 101–400 > 400 Total

3.1. Sample and data collection We test the validity of the model and research hypotheses using data collected in a questionnaire survey of 310 firms operating in China. Over the past three decades, China has been moving aggressively from a strategy of imitation to one of innovation and establishing itself at the forefront of technological innovation. According to the reports by United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Institute for Statistics, China had spent 2.046% of GDP on research and development expenditure in 2014. This percentage is increased dramatically since 1996. Also, the transformation of the Chinese economy from a centrally planned economy to a free market has had great impact on the Chinese supply chains’ innovation system. Currently, China is also the world's second largest economy and globalization results in both pressures and drivers for Chinese firms to acquire external knowledge by engaging with more collaborative innovation activities in global supply chain networks to improve their performance. In addition, Chinese culture has strong implications for interpersonal and inter-organizational dynamics in supply chain networks. China is an economy based on relationships, which is an important factor influencing collaborative innovation in supply chain networks. Thus, China provides a rich context to test the interplay among the variables in this research. Examinations of the mediating role of knowledge sharing and the moderating role of collaborative innovation capability are particularly meaningful in the Chinese context. We mainly used snowball (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981) to select our sample firms most of which are located in the Shandong Province. The selected firms represent a wide range of industries, including Health Care, Energy, Information Technology, Materials, Telecommunication Services and Utilities. To carry out our research, we submitted a survey project proposal to Shandong Province. The project was approved. Then we acquired a letter of recommendation from the local government bureau. In order to collect enough data, we first contacted our cooperative partners, which have some sort of prior relationships with us, and used the Yellow Pages to identify big firms (with annual turnover > 1000 million RMB Yuan). We then encouraged the top managers of these big firms to recommend collaborative innovation partners in their supply chain networks. These supply chain partners may or may not on the Yellow Pages. Only a few (roughly less than 15%) firms were identified and selected directly using the Yellow Pages. In our project team, there were eleven members from our university. Two of them were teachers, who were responsible for designing the survey, providing necessary training and leading the nine students in carrying out the interviews, distributing and collecting questionnaires, and subsequent data analysis. There was another member, from the local government, who helped us to coordinate with the respondent firms for the purposes of executing successful interviews. Data were collected from July 2014 to September 2015, via face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire. We obtained 236 completed and usable questionnaires from these firms, representing a response rate of 76%. Our respondents mostly comprised CEOs (45%) and heads of R&D departments (25%). Table 1 lists the respondent firm characteristics,

Number of firms

Percentage (%)

27 37 38 44 40 20 30

11.4 15.7 16.1 18.6 16.9 8.5 12.7

51 96 57 32

21.6 40.7 24.2 13.6

66 62 29 22 22 35

28.0 26.3 12.3 9.3 9.3 14.8

72 56 36 72 236

30.5 23.7 15.3 30.5 100

including firm age, number of employees, annual turnover, and total assets. Prior to distribution of the formal questionnaire survey, a preliminary version of the survey instrument was pre-tested among a group of five executives and three heads of R&D departments from enterprises in the above industries. Feedback from them was incorporated into a revised version of the survey instrument, along with comments and suggestions from industry experts, local government officials, and several colleagues knowledgeable in survey design. We also subsequently interviewed of these pre-testers, who are responsible for collaborative innovation projects, given that CEOs and heads of R&D departments are best able to respond to questions regarding their firms’ innovation issues. This approach is consistent with the selection of key informants knowledgeable regarding organizational matters by virtue of their position (John and Weitz, 1988).

3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Dependent variable 3.2.1.1. Innovation performance. Innovation performance refers to the degree of success attained by the supply firm at achieving its goals pertaining to product-market or technological innovation (Goodale et al., 2011). We measured this dependent variable, innovation performance of the supply chain firm, with a composite 7-point Likert-type scale. The respondents were asked to assess their firm's performance in common terms of innovation, such as technological competitiveness, response to customer demand, number of new products or services, profitability, and speed to market of new products or services against their principal competitors operating in the same sector. No objective indicators, such as patents, were used to measure innovation performance. Our purpose was to examine the overall innovation performance of firms; we believe that this relative measurement approach is a feasible approach to satisfy this purpose (Ritala et al., 2015). These innovation performance measures have been frequently used in the extant product development literature (Chen and Huang, 2009).

5

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

3.2.2. Independent variables 3.2.2.1. Collaborative innovation activities. In the questionnaire items, firms indicate whether they had engaged in supply chain collaborative activities involving innovation in the last few years. Respondents specified whether they participated in collaborative R&D or other innovation-related projects with their customers or suppliers. We used five items on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strong disagreement, 7 = strong agreement) to measure firm involvement in supply chain collaborative activities. The scale items measure both the extent and frequency of involvement of each firm and are developed using the existing literature on collaborative innovation (Soosay et al., 2008; Mishra and Shah, 2009). For instance, the measurement items CIA2 (we frequently provide technical support to other partners in the supply chain network) and CIA5 (new product R&D teams have frequent interaction with customers and suppliers) are each a measure of the extent to which the firm collaborates with suppliers, customers, and R&D partners in the collaborative innovation process.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics, and internal consistency of scale constructs.

3.2.2.2. Knowledge sharing. We developed a composite measure for knowledge sharing involving a three-item scale based on knowledge sharing intention measured following Bock et al. (2005) and Ritala et al. (2015). We chose this measure because it covered different aspects of knowledge that may be shared among different collaborative innovation members in supply chain networks. The original instrument was designed to measure the intention to share knowledge in an interfirm context. This was modified herein to measure supply chain firms’ perceptions of the degree to which their collaborative innovation partners share different forms of knowledge. We dropped three items in order to simplify the questionnaire and improve the reliability of the scale based on our preliminary data analysis.

4. Analyses and results

Latent variables Collaborative innovation activities

Knowledge sharing

Collaborative innovation capability Innovation performance

CIA1 CIA2 CIA3 CIA4 CIA5 KS1 KS2 KS3 CIC1 CIC2 IP1 IP2 IP3 IP4 IP5 IP6

Means

S.D.

Cronbach's alpha

5.52 4.94 5.36 4.93 5.06 5.44 5.30 5.61 5.78 5.78 5.69 5.65 5.15 4.59 5.50 5.24

1.469 1.479 1.403 1.365 1.474 1.439 1.410 1.346 1.424 1.297 1.331 1.268 1.402 1.303 1.367 1.460

0.869

0.889

0.883 0.875

4.1. Reliability and validity This study used SPSS 22.0 to estimate the model's reliability and validity and to test the proposed hypotheses. After the questionnaires were collected, we operationalized composite reliability using Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Cortina (1993) argues that the alpha coefficient is one of the most important and pervasive statistics in research involving test construction and use. Most studies that have used alpha regard values thereof equal to or exceeding 0.70 as adequate without comparing it with the number of items in the scale (Cortina, 1993). As shown in Table 2, the Cronbach's alpha values of individual constructs are all greater than 0.85, suggesting that the items reflect the underlying phenomena well. Table 3 displays the correlation coefficients of the research variables. The results from Table 3 indicate that the correlations between factors are all significant.

3.2.2.3. Collaborative innovation capability. A firm's collaborative innovation capability in a supply chain network is what enables the firm to effectively integrate with their collaborative innovation partners to achieve high innovation performance (Mishra and Shah, 2009). The essence of collaborative innovation capability is that returns obtained from jointly using collaborative innovation practices with higher capability are greater than the sum of returns obtained from using individual innovation practices in isolation. The literature proposes several different measures of collaborative innovation capability (Blomqvist and Levy, 2006), and no single measure is superior to all others under all circumstances. This study defines collaborative innovation capability as the ability to ensure that the knowledge or technology generated by any firm in the supply chain network is captured and eventually exploited, not re-generated later or left unrecognized. The authors also view collaborative innovation capability as identifying the key collaborative innovation partners along with their roles and responsibilities and cooperating with them to complete a collaborative R&D project.

4.2. Hypotheses Tests To see how much additional variance was explained by the independent variables after controls, we tested our hypotheses with hierarchical MR and MMR analyses. To begin with, we conducted a three-step regression analysis to examine the mediating effects of knowledge sharing (Table 4). We first examined the effects of the control variables (dummy variables) on innovation performance by regressing innovation performance on these variables (Model 1). Then, in Step 1, we added one independent variable to test the effect of collaborative innovation activities on a firm's innovation performance. The results in Model 2 show the hierarchical regression analyses estimating the effects of collaborative innovation activities. Hypothesis 1 states that firms that engage more in collaborative innovation activities are associated with higher levels of innovation performance. As shown in Table 4, the coefficient for collaborative innovation activities is positive and significant (P < 0.01), indicating that collaborative innovation activities contribute to firm's innovation performance. Hence, Hypothesis 1 is supported. In Step 2, we regressed knowledge sharing on collaborative innovation activities and the control variables to test their effects on knowledge sharing (Model 3b). Then we regressed innovation performance on knowledge sharing and the control variables to examine its effect on innovation performance. The results in Model 3a suggest that knowledge sharing has a significantly positive effect on innovation performance (P < 0.01), indicating that sharing more knowledge contributes to a firm's collaborative innovation performance. Hence,

3.2.3. Control variables Firm age may influence innovation performance because innovation culture and resource deployment may be a function of longevity. We calculate firm age as the number of years from the founding date. We use six dummy variables to measure firm age. Moreover, previous studies suggest that firm size may be a latent issue (Laursen and Salter, 2006); hence, we also include the size of collaborative innovation participating firms as a control variable. To some degree, firm size reflects investment ability for R&D projects. This study measures firm size as the number of employees and annual sales in million RMB Yuan using three and six dummy variables, respectively.

6

7 1 − 0.296** − 0.208** 0.613** − 0.173** − 0.133* − 0.127 − 0.105 − 0.219**

1. Collaborative innovation activities 2. Knowledge sharing 3. Collaborative innovation capability 4. Innovation performance 5. Firm age 1 6. Firm age 2 7. Firm age 3 8. Firm age 5 9. Firm age 6 10. Firm age 7 11. Number of employees 1 12. Number of employees 3 13. Number of employees 4 14. Annual turnover 1 15. Annual turnover 2 16. Annual turnover 4 17. Annual turnover 5 18. Annual turnover 6 19. Annual turnover 7

* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

11

1 0.733** 0.709** 0.748** − 0.266** − 0.101 − 0.049 0.078 0.095 0.159* − 0.266** 0.128* 0.223** − 0.306** 0.014 0.151* 0.008 0.153* 0.264**

1. Collaborative innovation activities 2. Knowledge sharing 3. Collaborative innovation capability 4. Innovation performance 5. Firm age 1 6. Firm age 2 7. Firm age 3 8. Firm age 5 9. Firm age 6 10. Firm age 7 11. Number of employees 1 12. Number of employees 3 13. Number of employees 4 14. Annual turnover 1 15. Annual turnover 2 16. Annual turnover 4 17. Annual turnover 5 18. Annual turnover 6 19. Annual turnover 7

Variables

1

Variables

Table 3 Correlations.

1 − 0.223** − 0.285** − 0.022 0.057 0.081 0.198** 0.210**

12

1 0.664** 0.678** − 0.189** − 0.062 0.049 − 0.029 0.062 0.106 − 0.162* 0.117 0.115 − 0.202** − 0.027 0.097 0.007 0.121 0.196**

2

1 − 0.192** − 0.040 0.086 − 0.041 − 0.079 0.322**

13

0.752** − 0.228** − 0.119 0.027 − 0.032 0.060 0.139* − 0.227** 0.033 0.179** − 0.172** 0.014 0.068 − 0.053 0.079 0.183**

3

1 − − − − −

14

1 − 0.206** − 0.160* 0.000 0.021 0.068 0.165* − 0.318** 0.168** 0.189** − 0.307** 0.021 0.145* − 0.002 0.136* 0.267**

4

0.372** 0.200** 0.150* 0.124 0.260**

1 − 0.155* − 0.157* − 0.162* − 0.109 − 0.137* 0.361** − 0.203** − 0.142* 0.280** − 0.154* − 0.069 − 0.028 − 0.072 − 0.113

5

1 − − − −

15

0.191** 0.144* 0.119 0.249**

1 − 0.189** − 0.195** − 0.131* − 0.165* 0.085 − 0.053 − 0.069 0.069 − 0.072 − 0.058 − 0.002 − 0.025 0.082

6

1 − 0.077 − 0.064 − 0.134*

16

1 − 0.198** − 0.133* − 0.167* 0.078 − 0.113 − 0.072 0.010 0.105 0.058 − 0.055 0.033 − 0.150*

7

1 − 0.048 − 0.101

17

1 − 0.137* − 0.172** − 0.127 0.088 − 0.014 − 0.005 0.064 0.127 − 0.109 − 0.031 − 0.030

8

1 − 0.083

18

1 − 0.116 − 0.160* − 0.030 0.102 − 0.122 − 0.009 0.007 − 0.007 − 0.061 0.130*

9

1

19

1 − 0.200** 0.201** 0.220** − 0.238** 0.061 0.009 0.187** 0.057 0.127

10

C. Wang, Q. Hu

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

Table 4 Mediation regression models. Variables

Block 1: Control variable Firm age 1 Firm age 2 Firm age 3 Firm age 5 Firm age 6 Firm age 7 Number of employees 1 Number of employees 3 Number of employees 4 Annual turnover 1 Annual turnover 2 Annual turnover 4 Annual turnover 5 Annual turnover 6 Annual turnover 7 Block 2: Independent variable Collaborative innovation activities Knowledge sharing Block 3: Model statistics R Square Adjusted R Square F value

Innovation performance

Knowledge sharing

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3a

Model 4

Model 3b

− 0.10 (0.62) − 0.18* (0.54) − 0.08 (0.54) 0.02 (0.53) − 0.10 (0.65) − 0.09 (0.58) − 0.07 (0.51) 0.00 (0.44) − 0.08 (0.55) − 0.03 (0.59) 0.09 (0.54) 0.08 (0.68) 0.03 (0.81) 0.07 (0.92) 0.33** (0.64)

− 0.03 (0.60) − 0.13 (0.51) − 0.05 (0.51) 0.02 (0.50) − 0.10 (0.62) − 0.09 (0.55) − 0.07 (0.48) 0.02 (0.42) − 0.10 (0.52) − 0.02 (0.56) 0.05 (0.51) 0.01 (0.66) 0.01 (0.77) 0.00 (0.89) 0.23* (0.62)

− 0.06 (0.61) − 0.15* (0.52) − 0.09 (0.52) 0.04 (0.51) − 0.10 (0.63) − 0.09 (0.57) − 0.07 (0.49) 0.00 (0.43) − 0.08 (0.53) − 0.02 (0.57) 0.08 (0.52) 0.05 (0.67) 0.03 (0.78) 0.04 (0.90) 0.27** (0.62)

− 0.05 (0.60) − 0.15 (0.51) − 0.09 (0.51) 0.01 (0.51) − 0.10 (0.62) − 0.09 (0.56) − 0.06 (0.49) 0.00 (0.42) − 0.10 (0.52) − 0.02 (0.56) 0.09 (0.52) 0.05 (0.66) 0.03 (0.77) 0.03 (0.89) 0.27** (0.61)

− 0.07 (0.26) − 0.06 (0.22) 0.00 (0.22) − 0.12 (0.22) 0.00 (0.27) 0.01 (0.24) 0.05 (0.21) 0.01 (0.18) − 0.04 (0.23) − 0.02 (0.24) 0.03 (0.23) 0.09 (0.29) 0.03 (0.34) 0.07 (0.39) 0.15 (0.27)

0.13* (0.15) 0.22** (0.13)

0.56** (0.05)

0.25** (0.13) 0.225 0.146 3.520**

0.233 0.173 3.888**

0.388 0.343 8.669**

0.35**(0.15)

0.148 0.090 2.550**

0.239 0.183 4.299**

① Number of observations (n) is 236; ② Each path coefficient is standardized; ③ The values in parentheses are standard errors. ④ There are no missing item scores in the analysis. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

coefficient for collaborative innovation capability is positive and significant (P < 0.01), indicating that a high level of collaborative innovation capability contributes to firm's innovation performance. Hence, Hypothesis 4 is supported. As predicted, the coefficient of interaction is positive and significant (P < 0.1), indicating that the effect of collaborative innovation activities on innovation performance is dependent on a firm's collaborative innovation capability. Hence, Hypothesis 5a is supported. Hypothesis 5b states that sharing knowledge is more positively related to innovation performance when the firm has high collaborative innovation capability than when the firm has low innovation capability. To test this hypothesis, we used a similar method. The analysis first includes the control variables and independent variable ZKS (standardized value of knowledge sharing) in the model (Model 8), then adds the moderator variable ZCIC (standardized value of collaborative innovation capability) (Model 9), and finally includes the interaction terms (ZKS × ZCIC) (Model 10). As shown in Table 5, the coefficient of interaction is not statistically significant, indicating that the effect of knowledge sharing on innovation performance is not dependent on firm's collaborative innovation capability. Hence, Hypothesis 5b is not supported. The results of hypotheses testing are summarized in Table 6. All hypotheses for the main, mediating and moderating effects are supported except H5b. To better explain the form of interactions reported in the above hierarchical regression moderated multiple analyses, we plotted the trend showing the relationship between collaborative innovation activities and innovation performance at both high and low levels of collaborative innovation capability. This interaction effect is shown in Fig. 2 using one standard deviation above and below the mean to capture high and low collaborative innovation capability. The plot shows that when collaborative innovation capability is high, a firm's participatory innovation activities are more positively related to innovation performance; conversely, when collaborative innovation capability is low, a firm's participatory innovation activities are less positively related to innovation performance.

Hypothesis 2 is supported. The results in Model 3b suggest that collaborative innovation activities has a significantly positive effect on knowledge sharing (P < 0.01), indicating that participating more in collaborative innovation activities contributes to greater knowledge sharing by firms. In Step 3, we regressed innovation performance on collaborative innovation activities and knowledge sharing, controlling for firm age, number of employees, and the firm's annual turnover. The results in Model 4 show that the effects of collaborative innovation activities on innovation performance is reduced, but still significantly positive (P < 0.05). This indicates that knowledge sharing partially mediates the linkage between collaborative innovation activities and innovation performance, thus supporting Hypothesis 3. We conducted another three-step regression analysis (MMR) to examine moderating effects by first entering the control variables (firm age, number of employees, and annual turnover) and one independent variable (collaborative innovation activities) in Step 1; one independent variable (collaborative innovation activities or knowledge sharing) and moderator variable (collaborative innovation capability) in Step 2; and interactions in Step 3. Changes in the multiple squared correlation coefficient (R2) were traced from step to step (Tsai, 2001). To minimize the potential threat of multi-collinearity, we mean-centered all variables, including collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, collaborative innovation capability, and innovation performance, constituting interaction terms, and then created interaction terms by multiplying the relevant mean-centered variables (collaborative innovation activities × collaborative innovation capability, knowledge sharing × collaborative innovation capability) (Tsai, 2001). As Table 5 shows, to test the moderating effect of collaborative innovation capability on the relationship between collaborative innovation activities and innovation performance, the analysis first includes the control variables and independent variable ZCIA (standardized value of collaborative innovation activities) in the model (Model 5), then adds the moderator variable ZCIC (standardized value of collaborative innovation capability) (Model 6), and finally includes the interaction terms (ZCIA × ZCIC) (Model 7). As shown in Table 5, the

8

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

Table 5 Moderation regression models. Variables

Block 1: Control variable Firm age 1 Firm age 2 Firm age 3 Firm age 5 Firm age 6 Firm age 7 Number of employees 1 Number of employees 3 Number of employees 4 Annual turnover 1 Annual turnover 2 Annual turnover 4 Annual turnover 5 Annual turnover 6 Annual turnover 7 Block 2: Independent variable ZCIA ZKS ZCIC ZCIA×ZCIC ZKS×ZCIC Block 3: Model statistics R Square Adjusted R Square F value

ZIPa Model 5

Model 6

Model 7

Model 8

Model 9

Model 10

− 0.04 (0.22) − 0.15** (0.18) − 0.04 (0.18) − 0.12 (0.18) − 0.08 (0.22) − 0.06 (0.20) − 0.07 (0.17) 0.02 (0.15) − 0.02 (0.19) − 0.05 (0.20) 0.01 (0.18) 0.06 (0.32) 0.00 (0.28) 0.06 (0.32) 0.10 (0.22)

− 0.02 (0.21) − 0.13* (0.18) − 0.03 (0.18) − 0.10 (0.18) − 0.07 (0.22) − 0.06 (0.20) − 0.05 (0.17) 0.03 (0.15) − 0.01 (0.18) − 0.06 (0.20) 0.02 (0.18) 0.07 (0.23) 0.02 (0.27) 0.07 (0.32) 0.10 (0.22)

− 0.02 (0.18) − 0.12 (0.19) − 0.02 (0.18) − 0.09 (0.18) − 0.07 (0.22) − 0.05 (0.20) − 0.05 (0.17) 0.03 (0.15) − 0.01 (0.18) − 0.04 (0.20) 0.02 (0.18) 0.07 (0.24) 0.01 (0.28) 0.07 (0.32) 0.10 (0.22)

− 0.05 (0.19) − 0.15 (0.16) − 0.07 (0.16) − 0.05 (0.16) − 0.05 (0.19) − 0.02 (0.17) − 0.14 (0.15) 0.00 (0.13) 0.03 (0.16) 0.04 (0.17) 0.10 (0.16) 0.12* (0.20) 0.02 (0.24) 0.08 (0.28) 0.18** (0.19)

0.03 (0.16) − 0.07 (0.14) − 0.02 (0.14) 0.01 (0.13) − 0.01 (0.16) − 0.02 (0.15) − 0.07 (0.13) 0.05 (0.11) 0.02 (0.14) 0.00 (0.15) 0.09 (0.14) 0.11* (0.17) 0.05 (0.20) 0.08 (0.23) 0.15** (0.16)

0.03 (0.16) − 0.08 (0.14) − 0.03 (0.14) 0.01 (0.13) − 0.02 (0.16) − 0.01 (0.15) − 0.08 (0.13) 0.04 (0.11) 0.02 (0.14) − 0.01 (0.15) 0.09 (0.14) 0.11* (0.17) 0.06 (0.20) 0.08 (0.23) 0.15** (0.16)

0.52*** (0.06)

0.40*** (0.08)

0.42*** (0.08) 0.59*** (0.05)

0.16** (0.08)

0.20** (0.08) 0.07* (0.04)

0.28*** (0.05) 0.51*** (0.05)

0.48*** (0.06) 0.26*** (0.05) − 0.08 (0.34)

0.400 0.356 9.110***

0.412 0.366 8.968***

0.415 0.366 8.537***

0.545 0.512 16.382***

0.675 0.650 26.662***

0.678 0.653 25.528***

① Number of observations (n) is 236; ② Each path coefficient is standardized; ③ The values in parentheses are standard errors. ④ There are no missing item scores in the analysis. a ZIP=Standardized value of Innovation Performance (standardized Zscore); ZCIA=Standardized value of Collaborative Innovation Activities; ZKS=Standardized value of Knowledge Sharing; ZCIC=Standardized value of Collaborative Innovation Capability. * p < 0.1. ** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.01.

5. Discussion

perform better in terms of the proportion of turnover realized by means of new products or services. The results strongly support the claim that supply chain collaborative innovation activities increase innovation performance. Since participating in collaborative innovation activities offers a number of advantages (Slowinski et al., 2015), both customers and suppliers in a supply chain network likely already view each other as important strategic partner and already have some knowledge of each other's resources and innovation capabilities. This existing collaborative relationship may also ease negotiations over intellectual property rights, risk sharing, and cost recovery in collaborative innovation projects. So, engaging more in collaborative innovation activities with other supply chain partners enhances innovation prospects (Hall and Andriani, 1998; Rothaermel, 2001; Tamer Cavusgil et al., 2003; Faems et al., 2005; Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005; Cao and Zhang, 2011). For instance, customer firms may seek to cultivate mutually beneficial relationships with trusted suppliers in which the supplier is engaged early in the customer's R&D process to find the right direction of innovation with shorter times than other inter-organizational relationships (Schiele, 2012). Collaborative innovation among supply chain partners is not merely a pure transaction of resources and information, but leverages new knowledge creation and sharing. A great diversity of knowledge is distributed across the supply chain network, collaborative innovation projects provide ideal platforms for knowledge sharing and learning (Cao and Zhang, 2011). Collaborative innovation in supply chain networks will reach across different disciplines to consolidate broad knowledge regarding new product and service technologies. It is often difficult for a firm to buy and use such particular knowledge in the marketplace because of its tacit nature; however, a firm may have a better chance of accomplishing its objective of acquiring new knowledge and then improving innovation performance by collaborating with other supply chain firms (Soosay et al., 2008; Cruz-González et al.,

In order to meet dynamic market demands, it is necessary for firms to collaborate with partners in supply chains to innovate new products or services quickly. The critical factors affecting firm's collaborative innovation performance have been stressed in the literature (Cao and Zhang, 2011), however, most such studies focus on limited aspects of involvement and examine sources of synergy obtained from these domains in an isolated or fragmented manner. Such a focus does not represent the collaborative innovation process in practice because it ignores the factor interdependencies among collaborative innovation participants in a supply chain network. The primary objective of this study is to understand whether or not collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, and collaborative innovation capability affect a firm's innovation performance in the framework of supply chain networks. Theoretically, this study overcomes weaknesses observed in prior collaborative innovation research. To better represent these critical factor interdependencies, our study combined knowledge management and innovation capability theory to propose knowledge sharing as the mediating mechanism and collaborative innovation capability as the moderating mechanism vis-à-vis the influences of collaborative innovation activities on a firm's innovation performance. The empirical findings provide several valuable and interesting academic and practical implications.

5.1. Implications for management research This study has attempted to find empirical evidence for the idea that collaborative innovation activities are associated with the high levels of innovation performance. The analyses conducted herein support the posited hypothesis. Firms that engage more in collaborative innovation activities within the framework of collaborative innovation projects 9

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

Table 6 Hypothesis testing results. Hypothesis

Independent variable

Dependent variable

Proposed effect

Result

H1

Collaborative innovation activities

Positive

Supported

H2

Knowledge sharing

Positive

Supported

H3

Collaborative Collaborative & Knowledge Collaborative

Innovation performance Innovation performance Knowledge sharing Innovation performance Innovation performance Innovation performance Innovation performance

Positive Positive

Supported Supported

Positive

Supported

Positive

Supported

Positive

Not statistically significant

H4 H5a H5b

innovation activities innovation activities sharing innovation capability

Collaborative innovation activities, Collaborative innovation capability & Collaborative innovation activities × Collaborative innovation capability Knowledge sharing, Collaborative innovation capability & Knowledge sharing × Collaborative innovation capability

Innovation Performance

Another major implication of our findings is that our research provides some insights into the boundary conditions of collaborative innovation activities by examining the moderating effects of collaborative innovation capability. The interaction between knowledge sharing and collaborative innovation capability significantly affects a firm's innovation performance. This finding is interesting, given that previous research has focused on the direct effect of collaborative activities in explaining outcomes only, without addressing whether the effect may be dependent on the extent to which a firm can make good use of these activities in a more intensive way (e.g., Sheu et al., 2006). Participating more in innovation activities may allow firms to access new knowledge and technology through its collaborative supply chain network links, but the firm may not have sufficient capacity to absorb and use such knowledge to innovate new products or services. Hence, the better a firm can access other supply chain firms’ knowledge, the higher the resultant collaborative innovation capability of the firm.

High Collaborative Innovation Capability

Low Collaborative Innovation Capability

Collaborative Innovation Activities Fig. 2. Interaction results.

2015). This will reach across suppliers, customers, and other supply chain members in order to maximize potential innovation performance. In this paper, we also suggest a mediating effect of knowledge sharing with respect to the collaborative innovation activities–innovation performance relationship. Collaborative innovation activities have independent effects on firm's innovation performance through the mediating effect of knowledge sharing. Because knowledge is often “sticky” and difficult to spread (Tsai, 2001), Chinese firms operating in an emerging economy need to acquire external knowledge by engaging more with collaborative innovation activities in global supply chain networks in order to enhance their innovation performance. These findings enrich the existing mediating literature on the value of knowledge sharing (Collins and Smith, 2006; Chen and Huang, 2009; Gupta and Polonsky, 2014). A firm's internal collaborative innovation capability determines the extent to which it can simultaneously collaborate with other supply chain partners to achieve high innovation performance (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002; Soosay et al., 2008; Mishra and Shah, 2009). Investing in collaborative innovation capability not only allows a firm to effectively assimilate and apply external resources and knowledge for its own use but also allows the firm to work with other collaborative innovation partners to integrate and link innovation processes for increased effectiveness and performance. This research demonstrates that collaborative innovation capability significantly affects firms’ innovation performance in supply chain networks. The results suggest that high collaborative innovation capability is associated with a better chance of successfully applying new knowledge with other partners toward enhancing innovation performance. The results contributes to the research on supply chain innovation management, given that improving collaborative innovation capability is one of the most important objectives for firms in supply chain networks in uncertain and increasingly competitive markets.

5.2. Implications for management practice The model development and empirical testing presented in the study move our understanding of collaborative innovation in a supply chain network a step forward. The findings also present important implications for managerial practice by explaining that collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, and collaborative innovation capability interact with each other to affect firms’ innovation performance. First, the findings suggest that firms should consider the idea of a portfolio of interfirm arrangements when implementing their collaborative innovation projects with partner firms in a supply chain network in order to be effective in developing new products or services. It was observed from this study that collaborative innovation activities with different supply chain partners contribute to firms’ innovative performance. Second, the findings here also indicate that managers should pay attention to both collaborative innovation activities and knowledge sharing in order to enhance firm's innovation performance. Managers should realize that if you do not want to share something you know with collaborators, then you may never achieve the full potential of your ability to innovate, thus limiting the potential benefits from collaborative innovation activities (Ritala et al., 2015). We find that among supply chain partners, knowledge might have conveyed more value than if it was kept secret. Managers should realize that a firm's best interests lie in exploiting proprietary technological knowledge without attracting imitators to its technological trajectory. This goal may be more easily achieved in a supply chain relationship. More importantly, knowledge sharing in collaborative innovation activities often depends on patience and numerous iterations (Ritala et al., 2015). That is, firms should be encouraged to repeatedly engage in such activities to improve their ability to acquire, assimilate, and apply 10

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

directors) and R&D engineers. There may be significant differences in relationship perceptions between managers and R&D engineers; a factorial invariance test could be used to explore the differences thereof in future research. Second, this research does not show a significant association between knowledge sharing and innovation performance by the moderating effects of collaborative innovation capability. This suggests that a firm with a high level of collaborative innovation capability, who makes full use of knowledge from other supply chain partners’ knowledge sharing, may not automatically share knowledge to other firms. Previous studies has found that knowledge sharing or acquisition can increase firm's innovation capability, because the process of knowledge sharing may give the opportunity to draw on the depth and breadth of a range of innovation capabilities (Lin, 2007; Liu et al., 2017). In some cases, firms’ innovation performance may also rely on knowledge and competencies that are not developed by the firm's own efforts (Gupta and Polonsky, 2014; Ritala et al., 2015). For the reasons given above, the relationship between collaborative innovation capability and knowledge sharing is more complex than our original hypotheses. More research is needed to investigate the relationships between these two variables. Third, future research should also apply multiple methods to obtain data and analyze collaborative innovation in supply chain networks. Using a single respondent from one supply chain firm to be represent what are supposed to supply chain wide variables may not generate results consistent with empirical realities and thus create uncertainties beyond typical random error (Cao and Zhang, 2011). Future research should not only collect data from multiple respondents in one supply firm but also gather information from all firms in the supply chain network and investigate the complex supply chain relationship from a systematic viewpoint of the interactions between industrial and ecological systems (Oh et al., 2016). Future research designs can also incorporate inductive methods, such as multiple-case studies, to investigate the complex relationship among different variables in collaborative innovation processes. Multiple cases are akin to discrete experiments that serve as replications, contrasts, and extensions to the emerging new theory. A multiple-cases analysis method is situated in and developed by recognizing patterns of relationships among different constructs permitting underlying logical arguments. This method may be very helpful to analyze collaborative innovation phenomena in supply chain networks. Finally, Tables 4, 5, show that many coefficients for big firms’ with annual turnover > 1000 million RMB Yuan, are positive and significant. These coefficients indicate that relationships among collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, and collaborative innovation capability–innovation performance may be very different in big firms compared to small firms in the supply chain network. In future research, it will be interesting to investigate the nature and extent of these difference between the two kinds of firms. Such comparative analysis would provide more interesting and useful results for innovation researchers.

knowledge to new innovation projects. Therefore, to facilitate the effects of knowledge sharing, firms need to participate more in collaborative innovation activities with other partners in supply chain networks. As a supply manager, he or she must know that sharing knowledge with a customer also indicates a supplier's commitment to the relationship that goes beyond a simple calculation of the current relationship's costs and benefits (Henke and Zhang, 2010). Most importantly, collaborative activities help a customer establish a competitive and reliable supply chain network. Suppliers’ long-term innovation intentions, including continuous knowledge sharing, provide a basis both for the customer and the supplier to build confidence in the stability of their collaborative innovation relations and to act toward each other appropriately for increasing innovation performance. Similarly, if the customer shares knowledge and information with the supplier, it will also increase that supplier's willingness to invest in collaborative innovation activities. The more the supplier becomes knowledgeable about the customer's needs, plans, strategies, and product R&D programs, the more the supplier perceives that it can secure future new business opportunities with the customer through its collaborative innovation activities. The supplier is therefore more inclined to work on collaborative innovation activities, ultimately benefiting the customer as well as itself. Third, the above results suggest that a firm has to invest significantly in its collaborative innovation capability when engaging in participatory innovation activities. For most companies, the activities begin with recognizing fundamental supply chain relationships. To maximize the effectiveness of collaborative innovation, this initial recognition must evolve into a holistic vision that captures all interactions and interdependencies among collaborators. Next, managers must continue to involve a diverse group of supply chain partners in their collaborative innovation process to achieve better innovation performance. The real operational benefits of collaborative innovation are derived when efforts are made to synchronize capabilities and strengths with partners for the purposes of collaborative innovation projects. Further, achieving better innovation performance through collaboration is contingent on how capabilities affect collaborative innovation activities. Therefore, managers must continue to focus on ensuring that innovation capability at a particular level is achieved as it constitutes the important step toward improving firm innovation performance. Combing knowledge sharing with effective collaborative innovation activities, a firm that possess higher collaborative innovation capability can provide a fundamental source of competitive advantage. A firm can help ensure that it is maximizing its opportunities for improving innovation performance from its suppliers’ knowledge and capabilities, thereby increasing its competitive advantages in the marketplace while strengthening its interfirm relations—and strengthening suppliers’ innovation performance as well. 5.3. Limitations and future research Although this research has made significant contributions to both theory and practice, there are certainly some limitations and future research directions that need to be considered in order to appropriately position the study findings. First, because of the limited sample size (236), further testing of these constructs needs to be carried out in future research using alternative data. Related to this, it would be prudent if the instruments and models developed in this research were tested in different industry contexts. Indeed, analyses of collaborative innovation in supply chain networks associated with different industries may prove to be very beneficial in the Chinese context. Examining how they are used between high-tech industries and traditional industries and the different levels of supply chain collaborative innovation in each industry would help identify any industry-specific bias toward or against supply chain collaborative innovation. Relevant respondents include both managers (i.e., CEOs, presidents, and mid-level managers or

6. Conclusions In this article, an in-depth examination of the interaction among collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, collaborative innovation capability, and innovation performance in supply chain networks was conducted. The first three variables have been identified as important determinants of firms’ collaborative innovation performance in supply chain networks. These factors have been separately discussed in prior research, but a combined approach has been lacking. Such joint examination is particularly pressing because each factor seems to be relevant in terms of higher levels of collaborative innovation performance. In this study, we offered empirical support for supply chain knowledge management theory, investigating the significant positive 11

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

services against our main competitors operating in the same industry sector. 4. Participating in collaborative innovation projects with supply chain partners, we can achieve higher profit growth against our main competitors operating in the same industry sector. 5. Participating in collaborative innovation projects with supply chain partners, we can achieve new products or services to market faster against our main competitors operating in the same industry sector.

effect of collaborative innovation activities on innovation performance through the mediating effect of knowledge sharing. We also provide some insights into the boundary conditions of collaborative innovation activities by examining the moderating effects of collaborative innovation capability. The authors hope that these findings might stimulate researchers to further explore the interaction among collaborative innovation activities, knowledge sharing, collaborative innovation capability, and innovation performance in a wider supply chain network context, and assist practitioners in optimizing their collaborative innovation strategies.

References

Acknowledgements

Alnuaimi, T., George, G., 2016. Appropriability and the retrieval of knowledge after spillovers. Strateg. Manag. J. 37, 1263–1279. An, X., Deng, H., Chao, L., Bai, W., 2014. Knowledge management in supporting collaborative innovation community capacity building. J. Knowl. Manag. 18 (3), 574–590. Argote, L., McEvily, B., Reagans, R., 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Manag. Sci. 49 (4), 571–582. Bäck, I., Kohtamäki, M., 2015. Boundaries of R&D collaboration. Technovation 45–46, 15–28. Biernacki, P., Waldorf, D., 1981. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol. Method. Res. 10 (2), 141–163. Blomqvist, K., Levy, J., 2006. Collaboration capability–a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks. Int. J. Manag. Concept. Philos. 2 (1), 31–48. Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G., Lee, J.N., 2005. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Q. 29 (1), 87–111. Burg, E., Berends, H., Raaij, E.M., 2014. Framing and interorganizational knowledge transfer: a process study of collaborative innovation in the aircraft industry. J. Manag. Stud. 51 (3), 349–378. Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T., Zhao, Y., 2002. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 31 (6), 515–524. Cao, M., Zhang, Q., 2011. Supply chain collaboration: impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 29 (3), 163–180. Carlile, P.R., 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15 (5), 555–568. Chapman, R.L., Corso, M., 2005. From continuous improvement to collaborative innovation: the next challenge in supply chain management. Prod. Plan. Control 16 (4), 339–344. Chen, C.J., Huang, J.W., 2009. Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. J. Bus. Res. 62 (1), 104–114. Cheng, J.H., Yeh, C.H., Tu, C.W., 2008. Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 13 (4), 283–295. Chesbrough, H.W., 2006. Open Innovation: the New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press. Cheung, S.Y., Gong, Y., Wang, M., Zhou, L., Shi, J., 2016. When and how does functional diversity influence team innovation? The mediating role of knowledge sharing and the moderation role of affect-based trust in a team. Hum. Relat. 69 (7), 1507–1531. Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 128–152. Collins, C.J., Smith, K.G., 2006. Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Acad. Manag. J. 49 (3), 544–560. Cortina, J.M., 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 78 (1), 98. Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 (3), 297–334. Cruz-González, J., López-Sáez, P., Navas-López, J.E., 2015. Absorbing knowledge from supply-chain, industry and science: the distinct moderating role of formal liaison devices on new product development and novelty. Ind. Mark. Manag. 47, 75–85. Davis, J.P., Eisenhardt, K.M., 2011. Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Adm. Sci. Q. 56 (2), 159–201. Dodgson, M., 1993. Learning, trust, and technological collaboration. Hum. Relat. 46 (1), 77–95. Du, R., Ai, S., Ren, Y., 2007. Relationship between knowledge sharing and performance: A survey in Xi’an, China. Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (1), 38–46. Dyer, J.H., Nobeoka, K., 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledgesharing network: the Toyota case. Strateg. Manag. J. 21 (3), 345–367. Dyer, J.H., Hatch, N.W., 2006. Relation‐specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships. Strateg. Manag. J. 27 (8), 701–719. Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 21 (10–11), 1105–1121. Ernst, D., Kim, L., 2002. Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability formation. Res. Policy 31 (8), 1417–1429. Faems, D., Van Looy, B., Debackere, K., 2005. Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 22 (3), 238–250. Gao, G.Y., Xie, E., Zhou, K.Z., 2015. How does technological diversity in supplier network drive buyer innovation? Relational process and contingencies. J. Oper. Manag. 36, 165–177. Gloor, P.A., 2006. Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage through Collaborative

The authors gratefully acknowledge the very helpful comments and suggestions provided by the four anonymous reviewers. They would also like to acknowledge financial support received to conduct this study from the following projects: National Natural Science Foundation of China (71371110, 71671046); China Statistical Research 2015 Project (2015229); China Scholarship Council (201708370045). Appendix. Questionnaire Items Collaborative Innovation Activities 1. We frequently partnered with suppliers or customers in the supply chain network for new product R&D. 2. We frequently provide technical supports to other partners in the supply chain network. 3. Suppliers or customers were frequently consulted about the new product R&D. 4. Suppliers or customers became fully involved in the new product R&D process. 5. Our new product R&D teams composed of two or more other supply chain firms have frequent interaction with each other. Knowledge Sharing 1. We share our innovation work reports and technical documents to other supply chain members at their request. 2. We share our manuals and methodologies to our suppliers or customers at their request. 3. We frequently share our experience, know-how, or new ideas from innovation work with other supply chain members. Collaborative Innovation Capability 1. We can build and manage network relationships based on mutual trust, communication and commitment to ensure that the new knowledge or technology is captured and exploited in the supply chain network. 2. We can identify the key collaborative innovation partners along with their roles and responsibilities, and cooperate with them to complete a collaborative R&D project Innovation Performance 1. Participating in collaborative innovation projects with supply chain partners, we can achieve higher levels of technological competitiveness against our main competitors operating in the same industry sector. 2. Participating in collaborative innovation projects with supply chain partners, we can achieve higher speed levels in response to customer demand against our main competitors operating in the same industry sector. 3. Participating in collaborative innovation projects with supply chain partners, we can achieve a greater number of new products or 12

Technovation xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

C. Wang, Q. Hu

Nieto, M.J., Santamaría, L., 2007. The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation 27 (6), 367–377. Oh, D.S., Phillips, F., Park, S., Lee, E., 2016. Innovation ecosystems: a critical examination. Technovation 54, 1–6. Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L., 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q. 41 (1), 116–145. Ritala, P., Olander, H., Michailova, S., Husted, K., 2015. Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and relative innovation performance: an empirical study. Technovation 35, 22–31. Rothaermel, F.T., 2001. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strateg. Manag. J. 22 (6‐7), 687–699. Sáenz, J., Aramburu, N., Rivera, O., 2009. Knowledge sharing and innovation performance: a comparison between high-tech and low-tech companies. J. Intell. Capital 10 (1), 22–36. Sakakibara, M., 2003. Knowledge sharing in cooperative research and development. Manag. Decis. Econ. 24 (2–3), 117–132. Saunila, M., Pekkola, S., Ukko, J., 2014. The relationship between innovation capability and performance: the moderating effect of measurement. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 63 (2), 234–249. Schiele, H., 2012. Accessing supplier innovation by being their preferred customer. Res. Technol. Manag. 55 (1), 44–50. Schleimer, S.C., Faems, D., 2016. Connecting interfirm and intrafirm collaboration in NPD projects: does innovation context matter? J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 33 (2), 154–165. Sheu, C., Rebecca Yen, H., Chae, B., 2006. Determinants of supplier-retailer collaboration: evidence from an international study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 26 (1), 24–49. Simatupang, T.M., Sridharan, R., 2005. An integrative framework for supply chain collaboration. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 16 (2), 257–274. Simatupang, T.M., Sridharan, R., 2002. The collaborative supply chain. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 13 (1), 15–30. Singh, H., Kryscynski, D., Li, X., Gopal, R., 2016. Pipes, pools, and filters: how collaboration networks affect innovative performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 37, 1649–1666. Slowinski, G., Sagal, M., Williams, K., Stanton, T., 2015. Reinventing supplier innovation relationships. Res. Technol. Manag. 58 (6), 38–44. Soosay, C.A., Hyland, P.W., Ferrer, M., 2008. Supply chain collaboration: capabilities for continuous innovation. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 13 (2), 160–169. Swink, M., 2006. Building collaborative innovation capability. Res. Technol. Manag. 49 (2), 37–47. Tamer Cavusgil, S., Calantone, R.J., Zhao, Y., 2003. Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation capability. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 18 (1), 6–21. Tan, K.H., Wong, W.P., Chung, L., 2016. Information and knowledge leakage in supply chain. Inform. Syst. Front. 18, 621–638. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 18 (7), 509–533. Tsai, W., 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 44 (5), 996–1004. Tzabbar, D., Aharonson, B.S., Amburgey, T.L., Al-Laham, A., 2008. When is the whole bigger than the sum of its parts? Bundling knowledge stocks for innovative success. Strateg. Organ. 6 (4), 375–406. Van Den Bosch, F.A., Volberda, H.W., De Boer, M.,, 1999. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organ. Sci. 10 (5), 551–568. Wang, C.F., Han, Y., 2011. Linking properties of knowledge with innovation performance: the moderate role of absorptive capacity. J. Knowl. Manag. 15 (5), 802–819. Wang, S., Noe, R.A., 2010. Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 20 (2), 115–131. Winter, S.G., 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 24 (10), 991–995. Yasuyuki, T., Matous, P., Hiroyasu, I., 2016. The strength of long ties and the weakness of strong ties: knowledge diffusion through supply chain networks. Res. Policy 45 (9), 1890–1906. Zahra, S.A., George, G., 2002. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Manag. Rev. 27 (2), 185–203. Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E., 2003. Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Manag. Sci. 49 (4), 514–528.

Innovation Networks. Oxford University Press. Goodale, J.C., Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., Covin, J.G., 2011. Operations management and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation performance. J. Oper. Manag. 29 (1), 116–127. Grant, R.M., 1996. Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 17 (S2), 109–122. Gupta, S., Polonsky, M., 2014. Inter-firm learning and knowledge-sharing in multinational networks: an outsourced organization's perspective. J. Bus. Res. 67 (4), 615–622. Hall, R., Andriani, P., 1998. Analysing intangible resources and managing knowledge in a supply chain context. Eur. Manag. J. 16 (6), 685–697. Hansen, M.T., 1999. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adm. Sci. Q. 44 (1), 82–111. Hansen, M.T., Mors, M.L., Løvås, B., 2005. Knowledge sharing in organizations: multiple networks, multiple phases. Acad. Manag. J. 48 (5), 776–793. Henke, J.W., Zhang, C., 2010. Increasing supplier-driven innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 51, 41–46. Hildreth, P.M., Kimble, C., 2004. Knowledge Networks: Innovation through Communities of Practice. Igi Global. Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Slater, S.F., 2004. Information processing, knowledge development, and strategic supply chain performance. Acad. Manag. J. 47 (2), 241–253. Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Cavusgil, S.T., Calantone, R.J., 2006. Knowledge as a strategic resource in supply chains. J. Oper. Manag. 24 (5), 458–475. Huang, J.W., Li, Y.H., 2009. The mediating effect of knowledge management on social interaction and innovation performance. Int. J. Manpow. 30 (3), 285–301. Husted, K., Michailova, S., 2010. Dual allegiance and knowledge sharing in inter-firm R&D collaborations. Organ. Dyn. 39 (1), 37–47. Isaksson, O.H., Simeth, M., Seifert, R.W., 2016. Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: evidence from the high tech sectors. Res. Policy 45 (3), 699–706. John, G., Weitz, B.A., 1988. Forward integration into distribution: an empirical test of transaction cost analysis. J. Law Econ. Organ. 4 (2), 337–355. Kogut, B., Zander, U., 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3 (3), 383–397. Lawson, B., Krause, D., Potter, A., 2015. Improving supplier new product development performance: the role of supplier development. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 32 (5), 777–792. Lawson, B., Samson, D., 2001. Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic capabilities approach. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 5 (03), 377–400. Laursen, K., Salter, A., 2006. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 27 (2), 131–150. Le Dain, M.A., Merminod, V., 2014. A knowledge sharing framework for black, grey and white box supplier configurations in new product development. Technovation 34 (11), 688–701. Liao, S.H., Fei, W.C., Chen, C.C., 2007. Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability: an empirical study of Taiwan's knowledge-intensive industries. J. Inform. Sci. 33 (3), 340–359. Liker, J.K., Kamath, R.R., Wasti, S.N., Nagamachi, M., 1996. Supplier involvement in automotive component design: are there really large US Japan differences? Res. Policy 25 (1), 59–89. Lin, H.F., 2007. Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. Int. J. Manpow. 28 (3/4), 315–332. Liu, X., Huang, Q., Dou, J., Zhao, X., 2017. The impact of informal social interaction on innovation capability in the context of buyer-supplier dyads. J. Bus. Res. 78, 314–322. Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., Sawy, O.A.E., 2005. Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. MIS Q. 145–187. Mishra, A., Shah, R., 2009. In union lies strength: collaborative competence in new product development and its performance effects. J. Oper. Manag. 27 (4), 324–338. Mishra, A., Chandrasekaran, A., MacCormack, A., 2015. Collaboration in multi-partner R&D projects: the impact of partnering scale and scope. J. Oper. Manag. 33–34, 1–14. Myers, M.B., Cheung, M.S., 2008. Sharing global supply chain knowledge. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 49 (4), 67–73. Nasr, E.S., Kilgour, M.D., Noori, H., 2015. Strategizing niceness in co-opetition: the case of knowledge exchange in supply chain innovation projects. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 244 (3), 845–854.

13