World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology

International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering

Vol:3, No:5, 2009

Overcoming Barriers to Open Innovation at

Apple, Nintendo and Nokia
Erik Pontiskoski, and Kazuhiro Asakawa

resources. These resources and capabilities can be combined

Abstract— This is a conceptual paper on the application of open in various ways when implementing strategy [4], [16]. This
innovation in three case examples of Apple, Nintendo, and Nokia. resource-based view of the firm also emphasizes the dynamic
Utilizing key concepts from research into managerial and capabilities companies must have to match internal and
organizational cognition, we describe how each company overcame
external resources in rapidly changing environments, R&D
International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:3, No:5, 2009 waset.org/Publication/11055

barriers to utilizing open innovation strategy in R&D and

commercialization projects. We identify three levels of barriers: being an example of process entailing such capabilities [12],
cognitive, behavioral, and institutional, and describe the companies [19], [27]. Naturally, the external environment and
balanced between internal and external resources to launch products competitive dynamics of the industry have an impact on
that were instrumental in companies reinventing themselves in strategy. But how do managers come up with strategy for
mature markets. innovations and commercialization? How do they carry out
this strategy in through R&D projects? The question is not to
Keywords—managerial cognition, open innovation. ask merely what companies do, but also how they do it.
Though innovations can be incremental or radical, most
I. INTRODUCTION
successful companies find new ways to do things – a new

I N recent years, many companies have been able to reinvent

themselves with successful research and development
(R&D) projects. Traditionally marketing researchers and
twist or take on things. More and more companies are
acknowledging that they cannot do things alone. Companies
need to integrate outside ideas, research projects, and concepts
practitioners have tended to focus on the outcome of these into their own offering, thus acting on an open innovation
projects, i.e. the product, as the savior of the company’s fashion.
business. However, there is much more happening under the There are two drivers to open innovation. First, the best
surface that lead to the product to emerge from a R&D ideas don’t necessary come from the people you have hired.
project. But you can hire people who are in touch or sense the market
Commercializing innovation is not only about managing and integrate external know-how and input into R&D and
R&D projects, but relates to more fundamental issues in how commercialization internal processes. The traditional
managers organize and run their business. Firstly, the way resource-based view into a firm doesn’t necessarily apply in
companies think about their business and customers have today business environment. It can actually harm and hinder
changed. When companies are operating in mature markets innovativeness. Secondly, companies need to focus on what
and faced with diminishing profit margins coming up with they are good at and outsource what they cannot or need not
merely a new product is not sufficient [34], [13], [8], [30. do themselves.
Business success requires understanding of the customer’s
needs [19], [20], [23], [9], [10] and what role our offering II. TURNING GREAT IDEAS INTO BIG BUSINESS
plays in the lives of the customer [26]. A common business This article studies three companies that were able to
school teaching is that competitive edge derives from reinvent themselves and their business. We compare three
providing customers with superior value. So its not just the product development and commercialization projects that the
product, but what people do with the products that makes the companies carried out. Our aim is to compare and contrast
difference. So basically everything a company does is a success factors and pitfalls from these case examples.
service the customer – companies merely provide people with The three companies and products included in this study are
tools to produce the added value themselves in co-creation Nokia n-series, Nintendo Wii, and Apple iPod. Each project is
with the firm. [31], [32] distinctive and presents unique characteristics. Nokia for the
Secondly, there are many avenues to success in business. global geographic dimensions of its R&D project, Nintedo for
Companies have different strategies, capabilities and a cultural or experience marketing approach to its offering,
and Apple for the inspiring leadership in the firm. Each firm
Erik Pontiskoski is with the Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki, respectively is different in creating an organizational culture
Finland (phone: +358-050-5208633; e-mail: erik.pontiskoski@ hse.fi).
Kazuhiro Asakawa is with the Keio Business School, Graduate School of encouraging exploration and innovation, and freedom to be
Business Administration, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan (e-mail: creative.
[email protected]).

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(5) 2009 370 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/11055
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering
Vol:3, No:5, 2009

The main issues we aim to uncover in our case analysis are: Secondly, innovation doesn’t relate only to technology.
1. How are R&D projects initiated and carried out? Especially industries with strong engineering backgrounds,
2. How are innovations commercialized? leaving comfort zones of high tech and trying to understand
3. What kind of barriers to open innovation can be customers can make a big difference. This can act as the basis
identified and how do managers aim to overcome of business model and service innovation. Innovation isn’t
them? necessarily something grandiose – it can be found in focusing
on doing things regularly, every day, focusing on the
III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK essential, and learning by doing.
This study contributes to the academic research stream of Thirdly, innovations always deal with change. It cannot be
open innovation [5]-[7]. In order to further understand and viewed from only one process perspective focusing on
describe the phenomena, we draw from central concepts of technological or project management issues. Innovations are
managerial and organizational cognition [17], [33], [24], [28]. about people, organizations, and culture.
Fourthly, new knowledge has to be put together in new and
Managerial and Organizational Cognition novel ways. Finally, strategies and new products don’t usually
Managerial and organizational cognition refer to both the fail because of poor ideas, but poor execution on them. As it
International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:3, No:5, 2009 waset.org/Publication/11055

individual and organizational level processes in a firm has been defined in previous research [1],
regarding shared beliefs on what makes a business success
[17], [33], [24], [28]. In this study we focus on the underlying Innovation is the use of new technological and market
managerial and organizational cognition in strategies and knowledge to offer a new product or service that customers
activities related to commercializing innovation. will want
The dominant managerial logic in a firm defines how tuned
it to recognizing the potential of an innovation. Managers are Managers constantly struggle to make the best use of the
always carry their own set of biases, beliefs, and assumptions limited resources they have at hand. These decisions must be
based on their previous experience. This defines how we feel made under uncertainty, trying to find grains of truth sifting
about trends in technology, the marketplace, and how our through vast amounts of data available [15]. It is crucial to
companies should compete. These biases, belief, and understand what capabilities are needed in the R&D, and
assumptions define each manager’s managerial logic. It’s a commercialization, processes. These capabilities can be
mental model that sets the frame within each person looks for divided into three categories. Firstly, these skills can be at the
information and approaches problem solving. Naturally there core of the firm’s know-how, distinctive to the advantages the
is much competition in firms between different managerial company has over other players in the market. Secondly, they
logics. Usually one dominant logic emerges successful. It can can be critical, vital to the successful completion of a R&D
be based on the technology, systems, strategies, organizational and commercialization project. Finally, they can be
structure, and culture of the firm. [1] contextual, where certain capabilities are needed in the
The dominant logic is increasingly prevailing within a firm process, but this is an abundance of those specific skill
the longer the management has been working for the company available in the company or the markets. [7]. Companies must
and in the industry, and the more successful it has been. identify what are their core competencies and keep them in-
People tend to look for data only in certain places and have house. Critical capabilities can be arranged through selective
developed filters for analyzing information. Current partnerships with leading industry actors. For contextual
management strives to maintain the status quo. [1] A skills, it is enough to have a long list of partners who can
psychological pitfall based on human cognition and heuristics easily jump into projects and provide services in a reliable and
is to surround oneself with “yes-men” [15]. cost-efficient manner.
Unless companies have generic variety in their Innovations are challenging both from a technology and
management, the dominant logic may one day lead to crisis, as market perspective. In addition to clear risks and challenges in
the company may fail to notice critical issues for its business the process and technology aspects of developing new
[14]. It’s not a question about having the wrong strategy, but products, envisioning the potential customers are, their use of
not being able to change that strategy. Strategy is fluid and the product, and the benefits these customers could gain from
flexible [11]. the product, are extremely difficult. Especially in situations
where unproven technology is applied in markets and
The Nature and Management of Innovation
customer segments that don’t even exist yet, it can be very
According to innovation research [1], there are five main tricky to estimate market potential from a sales perspective
themes that underpin how innovations become successful. [6], [7]. Recent management literature suggests that company
Firstly, any competitive advantage a firm may have is lost if should be more inclined to put their ideas and products out on
companies don’t innovate. That is why, especially now in the market and further develop them with customers and other
poor economic times, companies should strive to reinvent partners. The early feedback that is generated in this kind of
themselves in the markets, not just cut expenses and wait for activity is used to further experiment, adapt and adjust the
better times. offering. [22]

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(5) 2009 371 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/11055
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering
Vol:3, No:5, 2009

Barriers to Innovation and the Concept of Open Innovation commercialize them. This sets the competitiveness of a firm
Traditionally, companies have adopted a policy of closed and defines how well it can sustain that competitive edge. This
innovation. This refers to an understanding that successful is referred to as absorptive capacity in previous studies [35]:
innovation requires control. Innovation is seen as something
that must be kept in-house and the intellectual property Absorptive capacity is viewed as a dynamic capability
generated through R&D is a trade secret. It can already be embedded in a firm's routines and processes, making it
considered harmful if the competition finds out what kind of possible to analyze the stocks and flows of a firm's knowledge
R&D activities in engaged in. Contrarily, open innovation and relate these variables to the creation and sustainability of
refers to a strategy and business philosophy where companies competitive advantage
actively seek ideas not only from internal but also external
sources. Furthermore, the same approach can apply to We argue that there is a hierarchy in the three barriers to
commercialization, where alternative internal and external open innovation. People can’t behave with out cognition.
paths are considered. [6], [7] Managers can’t expect desired behavior from employees, if
Previous research to open innovation has addressed the people have not internalized the required values and norms.
management of R&D projects over distances and managing Institutions must support the desired innovative behavior.
International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:3, No:5, 2009 waset.org/Publication/11055

the work or co-operation of groups of people [3], [21]. Open Other people get frustrated and leave or become lone rangers
innovation networks can be geographically dispersed. within the organization.
Initially, tensions derive from autonomy and control issues
between headquarters and overseas locations, may they be IV. CASE STUDIES INTO OPEN INNOVATION PRACTICES
subsidiaries or external laboratories. However, research shows As this is a conceptual paper, the case studies were
that challenges most prominently relate to information-sharing conducted based on secondary data. Each case company –
issues. [2] Apple, Nintendo, and Nokia – were facing challenges in their
People will make or break innovativeness in firms. So business at the time of the R&D and commercialization
controls what kind of people they have working for them and projects for their respective products – the iPod portable
what these people do. According to Afuah [1] there are five media player, the N-series multimedia computers (phones),
main roles that people play in the process for recognizing the the Wii console game.
potential and commercializing innovations: idea generators, The companies operate in mature markets, where
gatekeepers and boundary spanners, champions, sponsors, and breakthrough can often be made only by reinventing yourself
project managers. and doing things with a new twist. In our analysis, we focus
Our research into previous innovation, management, and on the mechanism behind linking cognition to action.
marketing literature, as well as empirical evidence in different
Apple
contexts shows that barriers to open innovation can be divided
into three main categories: Apple is often quoted to be famous, and proud, for not
conducting market research. They hire the smartest people, the
1. Cognitive, best talent. If they produce something that they are passionate
2. Behavioral, and about – something they love, then they are sure that people
3. Institutional barriers will follow them and buy the products. Thus, in Apple’s case
the main success factor in the R&D project was unlocking the
On a cognitive level we can analyze why managers don’t innovation and dreaming ability of the development teams.
even notice the need for innovation, but rather continue to run However, Apple did not do the iPod project alone. They
their business as before. Managers may not even realize the outsourced certain elements from external sources, which
benefits of new products or approaches. A common enabled them to focus on the user interface and commercial
managerial wisdom is that companies don’t fail because they aspects of the product.
have the wrong strategy, but because they continue to From a commercialization perspective, the iPod product
implement strategy that used to be right. was integrated with a proprietary platform for distributing
On a behavioral level our interest is in the actions of digital media content (iTunes). This requires interfunctional
managers. Managers may realize the potential and need for coordination, where all departments such as business
innovation, but don’t act on it. This causes inertia in the development, R&D, manufacturing, marketing, and sales co-
organization holding back new ideas until they just fade away. operate to find shared vision and make the business run
The challenge may lie in institutional factors. Employees smoothly.
are full of ideas, and have high hopes of making an impact in Nintendo
the world through in their work. Companies may even strive
In Nintendo’s case the goal was to provide a new kind of
to innovative, at least in their strategy, but in practice the
gaming experience. The company decided to position itself
processes, management, and incentives don’t support it.
completely different from the competition. When Microsoft’s
Firms comprise dynamic capabilities that define the ability
Xbox and Sony’s Playstation were competing on who had the
of a firm to recognize potential in innovations and

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(5) 2009 372 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/11055
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering
Vol:3, No:5, 2009

most advanced graphics engines, Nintendo decided to go customers share to service-providers they trust is crucial in
against the traditional industry wisdom, and developing products that are constantly cutting edge and
Questioned how people actually want to play. They were provide superior value.
able to introduce a new, communal aspect into casual gaming. Operational excellence refers to developing superb
This unique approach had been already tested with the operations and smooth execution often by providing a
handheld DS Lite gaming device. The company was able to reasonable quality at a very low price. The focus is on
attract females and families in addition to the traditional efficiency and streamlining operations in supply chain
hardcore gamer segments of teenage and young adult males. management. The firm’s offering needs now frills as the only
The Nintendo project focused on integrating that customer thing that counts is volume in manufacturing and sales.
understanding into creating an offering that provides a unique
gaming experience. V. CONCLUSION
Nokia Our finding through the three cases into open innovation is
that essentially it requires balancing internal capabilities and
Nokia’s N-series is interesting due to the geographically
external resources. This refers to having core competence in
dispersed R&D project. It may be only natural, since the
management, R&D and commercialization Just being in touch
International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:3, No:5, 2009 waset.org/Publication/11055

headquarters are located in Finland. Due to the peripheral

with the markets and its development won’t take companies
location of the country, the company needs to locate know-
anywhere, since managers need to act on the opportunities
how globally and spread innovation work to many different
they face. Too much information can also be confusing and
regions. Nokia’s main aim is controlling efficiency and
just asking what customers want is not always a good idea.
effectiveness in its R&D project.
Managers must have their own vision and understanding of
From a managerial perspective, Nokia must combine
how they aim to create value to customers.
internally generated knowledge with knowledge from other
Open innovation requires managers to identify what their
sources. Overcoming the “Not invented here” syndrome is
core capabilities are and focus on that. In this research we
crucial when the company’s own engineers partner with
identify three levels of barriers to open innovation: cognitive,
external organizations.
behavioral, and institutional.
Based on the results, we recognize that the case companies
In Apple’s case the focus is on the cognitive level. It is
each follow distinctive strategies and can be categorized
intriguing how they could match customers’ true needs and
according to the value disciplines model of [29]. Their generic
expectations without using market research on the iPod.
approaches to generating value to customers are explained in
Though open innovation refers to relying also on external
the table of Appendix 1. According to this framework,
sources, the best ideas don’t have to come from outside. In
companies must choose one of these value disciplines and act
Apple’s case, the CEO Steve Jobs’ mindset and vision of the
upon it consistently and vigorously in order to be successful in
future sets the direction of the firm’s creativity. They have all
business. The disciplines are
the skills and creativity they need for great ideas. The firm just
has to unlock the dreaming capability of its people. When you
1. Product leadership
have an understanding of where you want to go, then its just
2. Customer intimacy
about appropriately selecting the necessary resources from
3. Operational excellence
outside to build a full pack.
Nokia focuses on the behavioral level. The interesting issue
Product leadership is manifested in very strong innovation
in their case is how they could build such an extensive global
drive and brand marketing. Companies utilizing this strategy
innovation network when developing the first N-series
operate in dynamic markets, where technologies and customer
phones. On a cognitive level there are no great challenges.
preference evolve constantly. To survive in this business, the
Everyone can understand the need for open innovation, since
focus must be on continuous development and
the headquarters and main research labs are in Finland. The
commercializing innovation – even if it means killing your
only way to tap into the best engineering minds was to do it
own product. Branding is often in the design of the products,
through partnerships. From a managerial perspective the focus
and R&D and manufacturing processes are geared to improve
has to be on overcoming the “Not invented here” syndrome.
time-to-market. Products have high margins since profits have
Essentially Nokia’s R&D and commercialization management
to be made in a short timeframe.
is about developing competitive advantage through process
Customer intimacy puts the customer at the center of the
leadership. Resources are gained through sourcing and then
firms strategy and every day operations. Companies utilizing
combined with internally generated knowledge.
this strategy must excel in customer attention and service.
Nintendo’s development and launch of the Wii gaming
Products and services are tailored to individual customers and
console can be defined as a socio-cultural invention.
small segments. The focus of operations is on customer
Innovation in Japanese firms tends to traditionally rely on
relationship management. Companies must deliver products
incremental development. The strength is in improving on
and services on time and above customer expectations.
existing product platforms based on customer feedback. This
Reliability gets you close to the customer. The information

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(5) 2009 373 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/11055
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering
Vol:3, No:5, 2009

is due to the fact that Japanese companies strive to understand In summary, we find that open innovation is contextual. In
their customers and keep them happy by providing superior the three case studies presented in this paper, the companies
quality. In the case of Wii, Nintendo used the in-depth were common in being able to reinvent themselves in mature
customer information and understanding to create a markets and gain market share by launching novel products.
completely new kind of gaming experience. Wii redefines Each company was able to do things with a new twist, not just
how people interact with a gaming device and others while competing with the old rules of the industry.
playing.

APPENDIX I
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO OPEN INNOVATION IN THREE CASE FIRMS
Cognition capabilities Behavioral capabilities Institutional capabilities

Apple iPod Culture of constant innovation and Supplementing international Commercializing product and
International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:3, No:5, 2009 waset.org/Publication/11055

product/service leadership manifested in capabilities with external related service iTunes into
charismatic CEO Æ unlock dreaming and resources, Apple focusing on proprietary platform
innovation in employees user interface (interfunctional coordination)
(Product leadership)
Nokia N- Shared understanding within management: Small Efficient and effective project Combining internally
series and peripheral home market setting context for management global R&D generated knowledge from
strategy and implementation network (Operational several sources, overcoming
excellence) “not invented here” syndrome
Nintendo Desire to provide customers a unique gaming Reinvent how people interact Integrating customer
Wii experience, their own vision of what gaming with gaming devices understanding into gaming
should be like offering, providing an
experience, not technology
(Customer Intimacy)

REFERENCES [13] Galbraith, J.R., 2002. Organizing to Deliver Solutions, Organizational

Dynamics, Autumn 2002.
[1] Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation, [14] Hamel, G. and C. K. Prahalad (1994). Competing for the Future.
and profits, Oxford University Press, USA (2nd ed ) Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
[2] Asakawa, K. (2001). Organizational tension in international R&D [15] Hammond, Keeney, Raiffa (1998). The Hidden Traps in Decision
management: the case of Japanese firms, Research Policy, Vol. 30 Making, Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct. 1998
(2001), p. 735–757 [16] Hart, S.L. (1995). A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm,
[3] Asakawa, K. and Lehrer, M. (2003). Managing local knowledge assets Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), p. 986-
globally: The role of regional innovation relays, Journal of World 1014.
Business, Vol.38 No.1: 31-42. [17] Hill, R.C. & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and Mental Models:
[4] Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Innovative and Entrepreneurial
Advantage, Journal of Management; Mar 1991; Vol. 17, No. 1; p. 99- Activities, Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1057-1074 (1995)
120. [18] Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as Practice: Recursiveness,
[5] Chesbrough, Henry (2003). The Era of Open Innovation, MIT Sloan Adaptation, and Practices-in-Use, Organization Studies, 25(4): p. 529–
Management Review, Spring 2003. 560.
[6] Chesbrough, Henry (2004). Managing Open Innovation, Research [19] Kohli, AK and Jaworski, BJ (1990). Market orientation: the construct,
Technology Management, January-February 2004, p. 23-26. research propositions, and managerial implications, Journal of
[7] Chesbrough, Henry & Schwartz, Kevin (2007). Innovating Business Marketing, 1990.
Models with Co-development Partnerships, Research Technology [20] Kohli, AK and Jaworski, BJ (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and
Management, January-February 2007, p. 55-59. consequences, Journal of Marketing, 1993.
[8] Davies, A., Brady, T, Hobday, M., 2006. Charting a Path Toward [21] Lehrer, M. and K. Asakawa (2003). Managing intersecting R&D social
Integrated Solutions, MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2006, communities: A comparative study of European knowledge incubators in
Vol. 47, No. 3. Japanese and American firms, Organization Studies, Vol.24. (2003)
[9] Day, GS (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations, Journal [22] Moran, Mike (2007). Do It Wrong Quickly: How the Web Changes the
of Marketing, 1994. Old Marketing Rules, IBM Press, 1 edition, 2007.
[10] Deshpandé, R and Farley, JU 1998. The market orientation construct: [23] Narver, JC and Slater, SF (1990). The effect of a market orientation on
correlations, culture, and comprehensiveness, Journal of Market-Focused business profitability, Journal of Marketing, 1990.
Management, 1998 [24] Porac, J., Ventresca, M. and Mishina, Y. (2002). “Interorganizational
[11] Doz, Y & Kosonen, M. (2008). The Dynamics of Strategic Agility: Cognition and Interpretation.” In Joel Baum (Ed.), Companion to
Nokia's Rollercoaster Experience, California Management Review, 2008 Organizations, p. 579-598: Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
[12] Eisenhardt, K.M. & Martin, J.A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are [25] Slater, SF and Narver, JC (1995).Market orientation and the learning
they?, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 Iss. 10-11 (Oct 2000), p. organization, Journal of Marketing, 1995
1105 – 1121

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(5) 2009 374 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/11055
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering
Vol:3, No:5, 2009

[26] Solomon, M. R. (2003). Conquering Consumerspace, New York:

AMACOM.
[27] Teece, D.J., Pisano, G and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and
strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, Iss.7
(1997), p. 509–533
[28] Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J.A., Parvinen, P., and Kallunki, J.P. (2005).
Managerial cognition, action and the business model of the firm,
Management Decision, Vol. 43, Iss. 6, 2005
[29] Treacy, M. and Wiersema, F. (1993). Customer intimacy and other value
disciplines, Harvard business review, 1993
[30] Tuli, K.R, Kohli, A.K, and Bharadwaj, S.G., 2007. Rethinking Customer
Solutions: From Product Bundles to Relational Processes, Journal of
Marketing, July 2007, Vol. 71, p. 1-17.
[31] Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for
marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, Iss. 1, 2004, p. 1-17.
[32] Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions,
reflections and refinements, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2006, p.
281-288
[33] Walsh, J. (1995) Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a
trip down memory lane, Organization Science, 6 (May-June), 280-321.
International Science Index, Economics and Management Engineering Vol:3, No:5, 2009 waset.org/Publication/11055

[34] Wise, R. & Baumgartner, P., 1999. Go Downstream: The New Profit
Imperative of Manufacturing, Harvard Business Review, September-
October 1999.
[35] Zahra, S.A. & George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review,
Reconceptualization, and Extension, Academy of Management Review,
2002, Vol. 17., No. 2, 185-203.

International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 3(5) 2009 375 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/11055