SMEs in Collaborative Innovation Networks: A Maturity Model Evaluating their Absorptive Capacity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SMEs increasingly engage in Collaborative Innovation Networks (CINs) to access valuable knowledge for innovation from complementary partners. They deploy their absorptive capacity (ACAP) to make efficient use of this new external knowledge. Despite the importance of ACAP to support the contribution of SMEs to innovation throughout the lifecycle of a CIN, there is no operational measure to guide them regarding ACAP implementation to reach the network common innovation goal. We propose to design a grid-based maturity model allowing SMEs to evaluate their ACAP given their embedding contexts in CINs. We follow a mixed methods’ Design Science approach to define the content of the maturity model and adjust it by predicting the ACAP aspects that an SME should primarily master considering its context in a CIN. Our results expand academic understanding on the contingent peculiarities of ACAP by unveiling the natures of its practices and its contextual variability for the examined SMEs. We improve practice by providing SMEs with an assessment tool to early spot their ACAP deficiencies and implement the relevant corrective actions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it