Distinctive Competencies and Process of Innovation During Organizationals Merger : The Moderating Effect of Knowledge Vacuum

Kirana Rukmayuninda Ririh, Elisa Anggraeni, Machfud Machfud, Nurul Taufiqu Rochman


Merger organization may encounter contra and supportive conditions. Organizational changes due to merger often occur both process and knowledge intertia. Especially to a research and development agency which its core activity is innovation. Merger among R&D organizations is aimed to achieve legit images but also may delay innovation process. This study measure the effect of knowledge vacuum as a moderating variable between distinctive competencies and process of innovation. 36 targeted researchers and engineers from various former public research & development agencies were involves in a questionnaire survey. Data was analyzed using PLS-SEM. Results show that distinctive competencies significantly affect process of innovation, meanwhile knowledge vacuum is not a significant moderating variable between distinctive competencies and process of innovation. The most important aspects of distinctive competencies are to define detailed process of innovation from start to end and to be able to commercialize innovation output. These aspects will boost changing organization to achieve new goals and maintain innovation process. In this case of insignificant knowledge vacuum, the possibility of open innovation is adequate.

Full Text:



Aagaard, K., Hansen, H. F., & Rasmussen, J. G. (2016). Mergers between governmental research institutes and Universities in the Danish HE sector. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1099459

Agolla, J. E., & Van Lill, J. B. (2017). Insights into Kenya’s public sector innovation: The case of managers. International Journal of Innovation Science, 9(3), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-11-2016-0049

Ali, M. (2021). Imitation or innovation: To what extent do exploitative learning and exploratory learning foster imitation strategy and innovation strategy for sustained competitive advantage?✰. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 165(January 2020), 120527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120527

Allio, M. K. (2020). Guidelines for open innovation success with external product development firms. Strategy and Leadership, 48(5), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-07-2020-0092

Berkhout, A. J., Hartmann, D., Van Der Duin, P., & Ortt, R. (2006). Innovating the innovation process. International Journal of Technology Management, 34(3–4), 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2006.009466

Bolívar-Ramos, M. T., García-Morales, V. J., & García-Sánchez, E. (2012). Technological distinctive competencies and organizational learning: Effects on organizational innovation to improve firm performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 29(3), 331–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.03.006

Calipha, R., Tarba, S., & Brock, D. (2010). Mergers and acquisitions: A review of phases, motives, and success factors. In Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions (Vol. 9). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-361X(2010)0000009004

CHEAH, S. L. Y., & HO, Y. P. (2021). Commercialization performance of outbound open innovation projects in public research organizations: The roles of innovation potential and organizational capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 94(February), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.02.012

Chen, F., Wang, W., & Zhu, J. (2022). How do firms upgrade innovation capabilities through the coevolution of post-merger integration and network reconstruction? A multiple-case study of Chinese companies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35(3), 630–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2021-0185

Chi, M., Muhammad, S., Khan, Z., Ali, S., & Li, R. Y. M. (2021). Is centralization killing innovation? The success story of technological innovation in fiscally decentralized countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 168(March), 120731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120731

Choi, T., & Chandler, S. M. (2020). Knowledge vacuum: An organizational learning dynamic of how e-government innovations fail. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101416

Colombo, M. G., & Rabbiosi, L. (2014). Technological similarity, post-acquisition R&D reorganization, and innovation performance in horizontal acquisitions. Research Policy, 43(6), 1039–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.013

Contreras, I., & Lozano, S. (2022). Size efficiency, splits and merger gains, and centralized resource reallocation of Spanish public universities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 81(May 2021), 101190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101190

Dandira, M. (2012). Strategy in crisis: Knowledge vacuum in practitioners. Business Strategy Series, 13(3), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/17515631211225288

Fernandez, A. I., Lara, P. R., Ugalde, M. C., & Sisodia, G. S. (2018a). Distinctive competencies and competency-based management in regulated sectors: A methodological proposal applied to the pharmaceutical retail sector in Spain. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 42(January), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.01.007

Fernandez, A. I., Lara, P. R., Ugalde, M. C., & Sisodia, G. S. (2018b). Distinctive competencies and competency-based management in regulated sectors: A methodological proposal applied to the pharmaceutical retail sector in Spain. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 42(September 2017), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.01.007

Fouad, F., Tourabi, A., & Lakhnati, G. (2018). The innovation process impact on the new product performance: a case study. International Journal of Innovation Science, 10(3), 385–412. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2017-0071

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.

Heller-Schuh, B., Lepori, B., & Neuländtner, M. (2020). Mergers and acquisitions in the public research sector. Toward a comprehensive typology. Research Evaluation, 29(4), 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa015

Khan, G. F., Sarstedt, M., Shiau, W. L., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Fritze, M. P. (2019). Methodological research on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An analysis based on social network approaches. Internet Research, 29(3), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0509

Manning, L., Morris, W., & Birchmore, I. (2021). Organisational forgetting: The food safety risk associated with unintentional knowledge loss. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 118(PA), 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.08.028

Palacios-Marqués, D., García, M. G., Sánchez, M. M., & Mari, M. P. A. (2019). Social entrepreneurship and organizational performance: A study of the mediating role of distinctive competencies in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 101(February), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.004

Real, J. C., Leal, A., & Roldán, J. L. (2006). Information technology as a determinant of organizational learning and technological distinctive competencies. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(4), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.05.004

Stipp, D. M., Pimenta, M. L., & Jugend, D. (2018). Innovation and cross-functional teams: Analysis of innovative initiatives in a Brazilian public organization. Team Performance Management, 24(1–2), 84–105. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-12-2016-0056

Sucupira, G., Saab, F., Demo, G., & Bermejo, P. H. (2019). Innovation in public administration: Itineraries of Brazilian scientific production and new research possibilities. Innovation and Management Review, 16(1), 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-03-2018-0004

Symeonidou, N., Leiponen, A., Autio, E., & Bruneel, J. (2022). The origins of capabilities: Resource allocation strategies, capability development, and the performance of new firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(4), 106208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2022.106208

Taghizadeh, S. K., Nikbin, D., Alam, M. M. D., Rahman, S. A., & Nadarajah, G. (2020). Technological capabilities, open innovation and perceived operational performance in SMEs: the moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(6), 1486–1507. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2020-0352

van Lieshout, J. W. F. C., van der Velden, J. M., Blomme, R. J., & Peters, P. (2021). The interrelatedness of organizational ambidexterity, dynamic capabilities and open innovation: a conceptual model towards a competitive advantage. European Journal of Management Studies, 26(2/3), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejms-01-2021-0007

Wensley, A. K. P., & Navarro, J. G. C. (2015). Overcoming knowledge loss through the utilization of an unlearning context. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1563–1569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.052

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14203/STIPM.2023.356


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2023 STI Policy and Management Journal

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright of Journal of STI (Science Technology Innovation) Policy and Management Journal (e-ISSN 2502-5996 p-ISSN 2540-9786). Powered by OJS.