Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
Las capacidades de absorción en distintos contextos tecnológicos
ABSORPTIVE CAPACITIES IN DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGICAL CONTEXTS
AS CAPACIDADES ABSORTIVAS EM DIFERENTES CONTEXTOS TECNOLÓGICOS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v32n84.100545Palabras clave:
absorción tecnológica, capacidades de absorción, capacidades dinámicas, procesos de absorción, rezago tecnológico (es)Technological absorption, absorptive capacities, dynamic capacities, absorption processes, technological lag (en)
absorção tecnológica, capacidades absortivas, capacidades dinâmicas, processos de absorção, rezago tecnológico (pt)
Entender el lento dinamismo tecnológico que caracteriza contextos como el latinoamericano ayudará a superar su atraso tecnológico. El objetivo del presente artículo es identificar los factores que contribuyen a explicar la débil absorción tecnológica y la persistencia de la trampa del bajo aprendizaje tecnológico. Para facilitar la comparación de capacidades de absorción (ca) con distinto grado de desarrollo y la explicación de la persistencia del atraso tecnológico, se integran las literaturas de las capacidades dinámicas, las ca, y aquella que considera la absorción como un proceso. La estimación de un logit ordenado, con interacciones, en firmas industriales de la región-capital de Colombia, muestra varios aspectos: el potencial explicativo de integrar esa literatura; los rasgos de los procesos de absorción asociados a bajas ca y débiles desempeños absortivos; y una retroalimentación negativa entre las fases de dichos procesos que refuerzan los bajos aprendizajes y la persistencia del rezago tecnológico.
Understanding the slow technological dynamism of contexts such as Latin America will help overcome technological flaws in various geographical regions. Therefore, this work seeks to identify the factors that explain a weak technological absorption and the persistence of the “trap” of low technological learning. To facilitate the comparison of absorptive
capacities (ac) with different degrees of development and the explanation of the persistence of technological backwardness, this paper integrates the literature on dynamic capacities, ac, and the studies that consider absorption as a process. The estimation of an ordered logit with interactions in industrial firms in the capital-region of Colombia shows several aspects: the explanatory potential of integrating the available literature on the subject; the features of absorption processes that are associated with low ac and a weak absorptive performance; and a negative feedback between the phases of said processes that reinforce non significant learnings and the persistence of technological backwardness.
entender o lento dinamismo tecnológico que caracteriza contextos como o latino-americano ajudará a superar seu atraso tecnológico. O objetivo deste artigo é identificar os fatores que contribuem para explicar a fraca absorção tecnológica e a persistência da armadilha do baixo aprendizado tecnológico. Para facilitar a comparação de capacidades absortivas (ca) com diferente grau de desenvolvimento e explicação da persistência do atraso tecnológico, são integradas as literaturas das capacidades dinâmicas, das ca e daquela que considera a absorção como um processo. A estimativa de um logit ordenado, com interações, em firmas industriais da região-capital da Colômbia, mostra vários aspectos: potencial explicativo de integrar essa literatura; traços dos processos de absorção associados a baixas ca e fracos desempenhos absortivos, e feedback negativo entre as fases desses processos que reforçam o baixo aprendizagem e a persistência do atraso tecnológico.
Referencias
Acevedo, J., & Díaz-Molina, I. (2019). Exploration and exploitation in Latin American firms: The determinants of organizational ambidexterity and the country effect. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 14(4), 6-16. http://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242019000400006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242019000400006
Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2003). Subdesarrollo e innovación. Navegando contra el viento. Cambridge University Press; OEI.
Becker, M., & Zirpoli, F. (2008). Applying organizational routines in analyzing the behavior of organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66(1), 128-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2007.04.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2007.04.002
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416096 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416096
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 decade award – “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited” ten years later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 497-514. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0042
Cameron, C., & Trivedi, P. (2005). Microeconometrics methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811241
Chan, L., Shaffer, M., & Snape, E. (2004). In search of sustained competitive advantage: The impact of organizational culture, competitive strategy and human resource management practices on firm performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519032000157320 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519032000157320
Chen, J., Chen, Y., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011). The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation, 31(8), 362-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.03.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.03.002
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business School Press.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. (2007). Progreso técnico y cambio estructural en América Latina. CEPAL; IDRC; CDRI. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/3683/1/S2007027_es.pdf
Da Silva, A., Rapini, M. S., & Caliari, T. (2020). Organizational determinants and idiosyncrasies of firms’ absorptive capacity in a developing country. Science and Public Policy, 47(3), 384-395. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa020
Dini, M., & Stumpo, G. (Comps.). (2011). Políticas para la innovación en las pequeñas y medianas empresas en América Latina. CEPAL. http://hdl.handle.net/11362/3868
Dini, M., Rovira, S., & Stumpo, G. (2014). Una introducción a las políticas de innovación para las pymes. En M. Dini, S. Rovira, & G. Stumpo (Coords.), Una promesa y un suspirar: políticas de innovación para pymes en América Latina (pp. 9-22). CEPAL; GIZ. http://hdl.handle.net/11362/37352
Dong, A., Garbuio, M., & Lovallo, D. (2016). Generative sensing: A design perspective on the microfoundations of sensing capabilities. California Management Review, 58(4), 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.97 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.97
Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. (2010). Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. En B. H. Hall, & N. Rosenberg (Eds), Handbook of Economics of Innovation (pp. 57-127). North Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01003-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01003-8
Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M., & Peteraf, M. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: Current debates and futures directions. British Journal of Management, 20(s1), s1-s8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00609.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00609.x
Feldman, M., & Pentland, B. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620
Feldman, M., Pentland, B., D’Adderio, L., & Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505-513. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1070
Greene, W. (2007). Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159793 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
Helfat, C., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (n)ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11), 1243-1250. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.955 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.955
Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. A. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006
Lane, P., Koka, B., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833-863. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159255 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527456
Laursen, K. (2012). Keep searching and you’ll find: What do we know about variety creation through firms’ search activities for innovation? Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1181-1220. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts025
Laursen, K., & Foss, N. (2003). New human resource management practices, complementarities, and the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27(2), 243-263. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/27.2.243 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/27.2.243
Lavie, D. (2006). Capability reconfiguration: An analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 153-174. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379629 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379629
Lazaric, N. (2011). Organizational routines and cognition: an introduction to empirical and analytical contributions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137411000130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137411000130
Levinthal, D., & Marengo, L. (2020). Organizations, ambiguity, and conflict: Introduction to the special issue in honor of James G. March. Industrial and Corporate Change, 29(1), 81-87. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz066 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz066
Malaver, F., & Vargas, M. (2006). Capacidades tecnológicas, innovación y competitividad de la industria de Bogotá y Cundinamarca: resultados de una encuesta de innovación. CCB; OCyT. http://hdl.handle.net/11520/24715
Malaver, F., & Vargas, M. (2011). Formas de innovar, desempeño innovador y competitividad industrial. Un estudio a partir de la Segunda Encuesta de Innovación en la industria de Bogotá y Cundinamarca. Editorial Javeriana; CCB.
Malaver, F., & Vargas, M. (2013). Formas de innovar y sus implicaciones de política: lecciones de una experiencia. Cuadernos de Economía, 32(60), 499-532. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ceconomia/article/view/40123/42012
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2634940 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1994). La organización creadora de conocimiento. Oxford University Press.
O´Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data – Oslo Manual. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development-Frascati Manual. OECD. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/frascati-manual-2015_9789264239012-en#page1
Ortigueira-Sánchez, L., Stein, W., Risco-Martínez, S., & Ricalde, M. F. (2020). The impact of absorptive capacity on innovation in Peru. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 15(4), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242020000400019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242020000400019
Pando, V., & San Martin, R. (2004). Regresión logística multinomial. Cuadernos de la Sociedad Española de Ciencias Forestales, 18, 323-327. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2981898
Pentland, B. (2011). The foundation is solid, if you know where to look: Comment on Felin and Foss. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 279-293. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413741000041X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413741000041X
Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (Eds.). (2008). Upgrading to compete. Global value chains, clusters, and SMEs in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank; David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies Harvard University. Harvard University Press. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Upgrading-to-Compete-Global-Value-Chains-Clusters-and-SMEs-in-Latin-America.pdf
Rammer, C., Czarnitzki, D., & Spielkamp, A. (2009). Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: Substituting technology by management in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 33, 35-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9185-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9185-7
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity´s conceptualizations, antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 864-894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x
Teece, D. J., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Review, 58(4), 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13
Teece, D. J., & Leih, S. (2016). Uncertainty, innovation, and dynamic capabilities: An introduction. California Management Review, 58(4), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.5
Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774-786. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159334 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275513
Vargas, M. (2017). Un modelo integrado de capacidades de absorción al nivel de la firma [Tesis de doctorado, Universidad Nacional de Colombia]. Repositorio UN. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/handle/unal/62054/TesisPhDMariselaVargas.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Vargas, M. (2018). ¿La capacidad de absorción es dinámica? Innovar, 28(67), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v28n67.68614 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v28n67.68614
Van den Bosch, F., Volberda, H., & de Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative
capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551-568. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.5.551 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.5.551
Vega-Jurado, J., Polo-Otero, J. L., Cotes-Torres, M. A., & Vega-Cárcamo, J. C. (2017). La base de conocimiento y su impacto en la capacidad de absorción de pymes de baja tecnología. Cuadernos de Administración, 30(55), 7-35. https://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/cuadernos_admon/article/view/18257 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cao30-55.bcica
Von Tunzelmann, N., & Acha, V. (2005). Innovation in “low-tech” industries. En J. Fargerberg, & D. Mowery (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of innovation (pp. 407-432). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0015
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991-995. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318
Yoguel, G., Barletta, F., & Pereira, M. (2017). Los aportes de tres corrientes evolucionistas neoschumpterianas a la discusión sobre políticas de innovación. Revista Brasileira de Inovação, 16(2), 381-404. https://doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v16i2.8650116 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20396/rbi.v16i2.8650116
Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6587995
Cómo citar
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Descargar cita
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2022 Innovar
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Todos los artículos publicados por Innovar se encuentran disponibles globalmente con acceso abierto y licenciados bajo los términos de Creative Commons Atribución-No_Comercial-Sin_Derivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Una vez seleccionados los artículos para un número, y antes de iniciar la etapa de cuidado y producción editorial, los autores deben firmar una cesión de derechos patrimoniales de su obra. Innovar se ciñe a las normas colombianas en materia de derechos de autor.
El material de esta revista puede ser reproducido o citado con carácter académico, citando la fuente.
Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons:
