Construct · 6 fields · 10 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaningorganizational learningcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to absorptive capacity is organizational learning.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
A firm's ability to recognize the value of new external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends, Cohen and Levinthal's 1990 definition, and the sentence every later meaning quotes. The capacity is a by-product of the firm's own R&D: doing research is what lets a firm read other people's research, so R&D has two faces, producing knowledge and buying the ability to absorb it. The construct is cumulative and path-dependent, sits at the level of the firm, and was measured by R&D intensity. It is a stock, not a process, and the authors said nothing about how the stock is used.[1]
A set of organizational routines and processes by which firms acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit knowledge to produce a dynamic capability, Zahra and George's 2002 rewrite, which turned Cohen and Levinthal's stock into four processes and split them into potential (acquire, assimilate) and realized (transform, exploit) capacity. The ratio of realized to potential became an efficiency measure, and exploitation, not recognition, became the payoff. Todorova and Durisin objected in 2007 that the rewrite had dropped recognizing the value of knowledge, which was the original construct's first step, and that transformation is an alternative to assimilation rather than a stage after it. The field runs on the 2002 version; the critique is cited and the model is used unchanged.[2][3]
What a manager reports when asked whether the unit collects industry information, meets with customers, records new knowledge, and turns it into products, Jansen, Van den Bosch, and Volberda's 2005 operationalization of the Zahra and George dimensions across 462 units of one European bank, which found that coordination mechanisms raised potential capacity and socialization mechanisms raised realized capacity. Flatten, Engelen, Zahra, and Brettel built a 14-item four-factor scale on the same dimensions in 2011. In this meaning absorptive capacity is whatever the items covary on, and the empirical literature since has mostly measured this rather than R&D. The referent is a business unit, and the informant is a person.[4][5]
A student firm's ability to learn from a particular teacher firm, which depends on the pair rather than on either side alone. Lane and Lubatkin argued in 1998 that Cohen and Levinthal's firm-level construct could not explain why one alliance partner learns and another does not, and measured the dyad instead: similarity of basic knowledge, similarity of compensation and organizational structure, and familiarity with the partner's problem set predicted learning in pharmaceutical–biotech alliances better than R&D spending did. The construct lives on in joint-venture, acquisition, and cross-border knowledge-transfer studies. What differs is the unit, which is a pair of firms, so the same firm has a different absorptive capacity for every partner.[6]
A person's capacity to take in and use knowledge from outside, and the aggregation of such capacities up to teams, units, firms, and regions. Cohen and Levinthal grounded their firm-level story in individual cognition, and the education and organizational-learning literatures took that footnote as the construct. Volberda, Foss, and Lyles's 2010 bibliometric review of 1,200 papers found the concept had been reified at the firm level, with almost no work on individuals, teams, or the mechanisms that carry learning across levels, and called for a multilevel construct with explicit micro-foundations. Lane, Koka, and Pathak had reached the same verdict in 2006. In this meaning the referent is a person, and the firm-level construct is an emergent property nobody has yet measured as one.[7][8]
The mass of a substance a unit mass of sorbent can take up at equilibrium, in milligrams per gram, the literal meaning the management metaphor was drawn from. Langmuir's 1918 isotherm fixed the model: a surface has a finite number of sites, uptake rises with concentration and saturates, and the saturation value is the capacity. Environmental engineering reports the figure for every candidate adsorbent; Gupta and Suhas's 2009 review tabulates hundreds of low-cost materials by their capacity for dyes, and the number is what decides whether a material is worth using. Capacity here is a physical maximum, measured directly, and it is reached by filling up.[9][10]
Next
Combine items across the absorptive capacity scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct