Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

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

Keywords

Conceptualization Experimentation Reflection Ambidextrous

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahuja

Lampert

C. M.

(2001), “Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions.” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 521–543.

Albert

Avery

Narin

McAllister

(1991), “Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrial important patents.” Research Policy, Vol. 20, pp. 251–259.

Argyris

Schon

D. A.

(1974), Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cameron

A. C.

Trivedi

(1998), Regression analysis of count data, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Cohen

Levinthal

(1990), “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 128–152.

Fleming

Sorenson

(2004), “Science as a map in technological search.” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 909–928.

Gittelman

Kogut

(2003), “Does science lead to valuable knowledge: Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns?” Management Science, Vol. 49, pp. 366–382.

Hall

Jaffe

Trajtenberg

(2000), “Market value and patent citations: a first look,” NBER working paper 7741.

Z.L.

Wong

P.K.

(2004), “Exploration vs. Exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis.” Organization Science, Vol. 15, pp. 81–494.

10.

Henderson

Cockburn

(1994), “Measuring competence?” Exploring firm effects in drug discovery. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 63–84.

11.

Jaffe

Trajtenberg

(1996), “Flows of knowledge from universities and federal labs: Modeling the flow of patent citations over time and across institutional and geographic boundaries.” Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences, Vol. 93, pp. 12671–12677.

12.

Jaffe

(1989), “Real effects of academic research.” American Economic Review, Vol. 79, pp. 957–970.

13.

Kim

D. H.

(1993), “The link between individual and organizational learning.” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35, pp. 37–50.

14.

Levinthal

D.A.

March

J.G.

(1993), “The myopia of learning.” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 95–112.

15.

March

J. G.

Olsen

J.P.

(1976), “Organizational learning and the ambiguity of the past, in Ambiguity and choice in organizations,” Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 54–69.

16.

Nelson

Winter

(1982), An evolutionary theory of economic change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

17.

Nonaka

Takeuchi (1995), The knowledge creating company, Oxford University Press, New York.

18.

Pisano

G. P.

(1994), “Knowledge, Integration and the locus of learning: An empirical analysis of process development.” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 85–100.

19.

Polanyi

(1966), The tacit dimension, Garden City, NY.

20.

Raelin

J. A.

(1997), “A Model of work based learning.” Organization Science, Vol. 8, pp. 563–578.

21.

Rosenberg

(1982), Inside the black box, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

22.

Stalk

Hout

J. M.

(1990), Competing against time, The Free Press, New York, NY.

23.

Trajtenberg

(1990), “A penny for your quotes: Patent citations on the value of innovations.” Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 172–187.

24.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Polley

(1992), “Learning While Innovating.” Organization Science, Vol. 3, pp. 92–116.

25.

Viljoen

Holt

Petzall

(1990), “The MBA experience: Participants entry level conception of management.” Management Education and Development, Vol. 21, pp. 1–12.

26.

Von Hippel

Tyre

(1995), “How the learning by doing is done: Problem identification in novel process equipment.” Research Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 1–12.

27.

Yelle

L.E.

(1979), “The learning curve: Historical review and comprehensive survey.” Decision Science, Vol. 10, pp. 302–208.

28.

Zucker

L.G.

Darby

M.R.

Armstrong

(2002), “Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology.” Management Science, Vol. 48, pp. 138–153.

29.

Zucker

L.G.

Darby

M. R.

(2001), “Capturing technological opportunity via Japan's star scientists: Evidence from Japanese firms' biotech patents and products.” Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, pp. 37–58.

30.

Zucker

Darby

Brewer

(1998), “Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises.” American Economic Review, Vol. 88, pp. 290–306.

31.

Zucker

Darby

M. Stuart

. (1996), “Scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry.” Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences, Vol. 93, pp. 709–716.

The Four Types of Organizational Learning and their Impact on Innovation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References