Driving new product development performance: the mediating role of absorptive capacity in open innovation for SMEs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study investigates the impact of the outside-in dimension of open innovation (OIO) on new product development (NPD) performance in technology-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), isolating a dimension often conflated with outbound and coupled strategies. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on survey data from 342 SMEs in Sweden and Slovakia, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is applied to test a conceptual framework grounded in the knowledge-based view (KBV) and the dynamic capabilities view (DCV), examining the mediating roles of potential absorptive capacity (PAC) and realized absorptive capacity (RAC) and the moderating role of trust. Findings OIO is found to significantly enhance NPD performance, both directly and indirectly, through PAC and RAC, with PAC identified as the stronger mediator. Trust strengthens the direct OIO–NPD link but does not significantly moderate the PAC–NPD or RAC–NPD relationships. This suggests that trust is more critical during the external knowledge acquisition phase than during the internal stages of knowledge transformation and application. Practical implications For managers, the study’s findings highlight the need to develop PAC and RAC as dynamic routines within the firm to help sense and transform external knowledge while developing trust-based collaborations with external partners during early innovation stages to maximize OIO benefits. Examples of such collaborations include partnering with local research institutions for early knowledge identification and deploying digital technologies to accelerate collaboration and shorten NPD cycles. Originality/value This study advances open innovation research by isolating the outside-in dimension and integrating the KBV and DCV to explain how external knowledge inflows are sensed, seized and transformed into product innovation outcomes. The study confirms the dual role of absorptive capacity as both a knowledge-based resource and a dynamic capability, positioning trust as a key relational enabler for SMEs during the knowledge acquisition phase.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".