Absorptive Capacity in Joint Project Teams
Evidence from Nigerian Upstream Oil Industry
Murali Raman
1
, Adedapo Oluwaseyi Ojo
2
and Chin Wei Chong
2
1
Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Graduate School of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia
Keywords: Partner Knowledge, Absorptive Capacity, Joint Project Team, Ability to Utilize Knowledge.
Abstract: This study advances the multidimensional concept of absorptive capacity (ACAP) by theorizing the
individual and collective capabilities underpinning knowledge acquisition and utilization in joint project
teams in Nigerian upstream oil industry. By assuming the lowest form of engagement as the joint project
teams constituted by local employees and competent expatriate, this study demonstrates the relationship
among the dimensions of ACAP. Survey was administered to local team members of joint project teams.
The collected data (n=248) was analysed with the aid of structural equation modelling (SEM). As
hypothesized, individual ability to recognize the value of partner knowledge was significantly related to
their ability to assimilate the knowledge. The positive relationship between individual ability to assimilate
knowledge and team shared cognition was supported. Furthermore, the individual ability to assimilate
partner knowledge was found to be indirectly related to team ability to utilize the knowledge, through the
team shared cognition.
1 INTRODUCTION
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) posit absorptive
capacity (ACAP) as the internal capability ensuing
from firm engagement in R&D, which facilitates the
acquisition and utilization of external knowledge.
ACAP is simply the link between an organisation
and the external knowledge (Zhao and Anand, 2009;
Schleimer and Pedersen, 2014). Consequently,
studies have demonstrated the significance of ACAP
in inter-organisational learning through strategic
alliance (Lyles and Salk, 1996; Lane and Lubatkin,
1998; Park, 2010) and intra-organisational learning
within multinational corporations’ network
(Schleimer and Pedersen, 2014; Chang et al., 2012).
Although, the original notion on ACAP
acknowledges its multidimensional nature, however,
most of the subsequent attempts have overlooked the
underlying assumptions (Lane et al., 2006; Volberda
et al., 2010). Specifically, by equating ACAP to
prior knowledge, extant conceptualization amplifies
the knowledge asset, without recourse to the
underlying capability and process (Lewin et al.,
2011). Aside few exceptions, recent expositions on
the multi-dimensions of ACAP have been theoretical
(Zahra and George, 2002; Lane et al., 2006;
Todorova and Durusin, 2007) and most of the
empirical attempts have downplayed the significance
of individual differences, by aggregating the
phenomenon to the collective level (Jansen et al.,
2005; Lichtenthelar, 2009; Nemanich et al., 2010).
For example, Nemanich et al. (2010) investigation
on R&D project teams in the US, delineated ACAP
into the individual and collective levels; however the
underlying data originated from the key informant.
However, as noted by Volberda et al. (2010) attempt
at clarifying the micro-origin of ACAP should
emphasize the differences at the individual level.
Accordingly, there is need for clarification on the
individual perspective to ACAP dimensions, most
especially in asymmetric project team, set up to
facilitate knowledge transfer. This study aims to
address this gap by examining the pertinent
dimensions of ACAP within the joint project team
constituted by local employees and expatriate.
2 THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
This study considers external knowledge as the
expertise embedded in the foreign partner
140
Raman M., Ojo A. and Chong C..
Absorptive Capacity in Joint Project Teams - Evidence from Nigerian Upstream Oil Industry.
DOI: 10.5220/0005031001400145
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2014), pages 140-145
ISBN: 978-989-758-050-5
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
employees, but accessible to the local employees
through their engagement in joint project team.
Thus, for learning to occur the former must
demonstrate the capability to acquire the knowledge
embedded in the latter. Consistent with the dynamic
capability view, ACAP has been delineated into
potential and realized components, underpinned by
individual and their collective engagement,
respectively (Zahra and George, 2002). Furthermore,
Lane et al. (2006) expose the reification of ACAP
and posit its rejuvenation on theorization from the
original notion. To this end, they re-conceptualize
ACAP as learning capability distinct to individual
and collective levels.
Thus, we define ACAP as the ability to
recognize the value of partner’s knowledge and
assimilate it, and the shared cognition underpinning
the team ability to utilize this knowledge in the joint
project team (Nemanich et al., 2010; Ojo et al.,
2014). The ensuing dimensions are individual
abilities to (i) recognize the value of knowledge,
which is the capability to search for, identify, and
accurately evaluate the value of the knowledge and
(ii) assimilate, which is the capability to learn,
interpret and develop a deep understanding on it the
knowledge. The other two dimensions are team (iii)
shared cognition, which is the mechanism through
which the team reaches a common understanding on
the individually acquired and embedded knowledge
and (iv) ability to utilize knowledge, which is the
capability of the team to apply the knowledge
embedded in the foreign partner practice in the
execution of the joint project. The pertinent
hypotheses are presented as follow.
2.1 Individual Absorptive Capacity
Lane et al. (2006) describe exploratory learning as
individual’s ability to recognize and assimilate
knowledge. An individual develops awareness on
the value of new knowledge from his extant mental
model. Thus, the ability to recognize the value of
external knowledge is the precursor to the extent to
which an individual can explore the related cognitive
map for assimilation (Huber, 1991; Todorova and
Durisin, 2007). With the aid of such map, an
individual is more likely to incline his knowledge
search effort to the areas that are most valuable to
the project (Tripsas and Gavetti, 2000), thereby
making assimilation easier. An individual, who is
competent in evaluating the value of new
knowledge, is expected to have substantial ability
for assimilating such knowledge in that his/her
attention will be directed to deepening
understanding on the specific valuable knowledge
(Lettl et al., 2008). Recent empirical investigation
on US-based research teams, found that members
ability to evaluate external knowledge is predictor of
the ability to assimilate the knowledge (Nemanich et
al., 2010). Thus, it is hypothesized that;
H1. Individual ability to recognize the value of
foreign partner knowledge is positively
related to individual ability to assimilate the
knowledge in the joint project team.
2.2 Individual and Team Absorptive
Capacity
On the demarcation between potential and realized
absorptive capacity, Zahra and George (2002) argue
that an organisation will only be able to exploit the
knowledge which has been absorbed. The absorption
of knowledge requires that the individual members
demonstrate the ability for its acquisition and
assimilation. Thus, a link is suggested from the
capability to assimilate knowledge to the capability
to utilize knowledge, thereby the integration of
individually assimilated knowledge is expected to
facilitate the collective utilization of the knowledge.
Highly intuitive individuals are likely to possess the
ability to assimilate knowledge, because they would
be able to engage in the collective interpretation
process (Crossan et al., 1999). Group learning
scholars (Laughlin, 1978; McGrath and Kravitz,
1982) suggest that the aggregation of individually
embedded knowledge is a necessary precondition for
team effectiveness in knowledge intensive work
domain, especially when creativity and problem
solving skills are required. Lane et al. (2006) assert
that the extent of knowledge assimilated by
individual is likely to impact on team’s outcome in
knowledge utilization. Accordingly, the team offers
the platform to facilitate the identification, retrieval
and exploitation of individually embedded
knowledge. Thus a positive relationship is suggested
between individual ability to assimilate knowledge
and the ability to collectively utilize the knowledge
at the joint team level. Therefore, it is hypothesized
that:
H2. Individual ability to assimilate foreign
partner knowledge is positively related to the
team ability to utilize the knowledge in the
joint project team.
2.3 The Role of Shared Cognition in
Absorptive Capacity
Consistent with the dominance of boundary
AbsorptiveCapacityinJointProjectTeams-EvidencefromNigerianUpstreamOilIndustry
141
spanning behaviour in few individuals, not every
member of the joint project would possess the ability
to recognize the value of partner’s knowledge and
assimilate it (Rogers, 1976; Cohen and Levinthal,
1990). According to Rogers the absorption of
external knowledge through boundary spanners
depends on their cognitive abilities, while their
influencing skills determine the spread of such
knowledge across the organisational level. To
buttress the need for shared understanding among
team members, Lane and Lubatkin (1998) suggest
relative absorptive capacity as the extent to which
partnering firms are similar in terms of knowledge
base, dominant logic, and organisational structure.
On situated context, Walsh and Ungson (1991)
argue the need for shared understanding, which is
facilitated by the creation of common language and
continuous social engagement. Klimoski and
Mohammed (1994) acknowledge the influence of
shared mental models on collective cognition and
behavioural action underlying the utilization of
external knowledge. Theorists (Weick, 1995; Senge,
2006) in sense-making posit that individual action
within a group is conditioned on others actions.
According to Hollingshead (2001) team-level
cognitive system pulls together individuals cognitive
abilities to enhance collective task performance.
Thus, the collective capability is critical to the
application of individually assimilated knowledge,
whereby project is executed as individuals’
knowledge are interpreted and integrated in reaching
consensus decision and solving relevant problem at
the team level (Knight et al., 1999).
The main determinants of effective learning
interaction within the group are the extent of
similarity in individual representation, interpretation
of knowledge and the mechanisms through which
meanings are construed (Nahapiet and Ghoshal,
1998). Through shared understanding, the learners
are able to connect with the sources and their
embedded knowledge (Kankanhalli et al., 2012).
Nemanich et al. (2010) consider shared cognition as
the collective assimilating capability, through which
individually assimilated knowledge are integrated to
generate shared understanding. Like shared
cognition, the ability to apply knowledge is also
team level capability, which is the extent to which
the team can utilize the absorbed knowledge in
enhancing collective performance. Based on the
above, the following hypotheses are suggested:
H3. Individual ability to assimilate foreign
partner knowledge is positively related to
shared cognition in joint project team.
H4. Shared cognition mediates the effect of
individual ability to assimilate foreign
partner knowledge on team ability to utilize
the knowledge in joint project team.
H5. Shared cognition is positively related to the
team ability to utilize foreign partner
knowledge in the joint project team.
3 METHOD
The data was collected between October, 2012 and
February, 2013, from local team members engaged
in joint projects with expatriate from competent
foreign partners in Nigerian upstream oil and gas
industry. In order to reduce dependence and
facilitate capability building, the Nigerian content
act of 2010 mandates foreign firms in the industry to
engage substantial locals’ through direct recruitment
or joint ventures. Thus, the lowest unit of
engagement is assumed as the joint project teams,
constituted by both local and foreign experts. The
managements’ consent on employees’ participations
in the survey was obtained from 35, out of a total of
52 companies identified from the department of
petroleum resources (DPR) database. Accordingly,
with the assistance of the human resources
departments in the former, the lead local team
members and two (2) other members suggested by
the lead were selected as respondents. The
purposeful selection of respondents is essential,
given that ACAP is theoretically associated with
boundary spanning behaviour, which is dominant in
few individuals (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Zahra
and George, 2002). Thus, the selected respondents
were involved in the coordination of other team
members and interface with members from foreign
partners (Cross and Prusak, 2002). The final analysis
was based on 248 questionnaires, which represents
62% of the total administered 400 questionnaires.
All the constructs were measured with scales
adopted/adapted from extant literature, and
assessment based on the five-point Likert scale
(ranging from 1 = strongly disagreed to 5 = strongly
agreed). The preliminary questionnaire was pilot
tested with 35 respondents. Based on their
comments, the relevant questions were rephrased in
order to improve clarity. The ability to recognize
knowledge was measured with three items (α = .77)
and ability to assimilate knowledge with three items
(α = .85) adapted from Nemanich et al. (2010) and,
Pedrosa and Jasmand (2011). Furthermore, shared
cognition (α = .79) was measured with four items
and ability to utilize knowledge (α = .81) was
measured with three items, all adapted from
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
142
Nemanich et al. (2010). The final sentence of a
caption must end with a period.
Table 1: CFA on Latent Variables.
Constructs and items Std.
Est.
Ability to Recognize (CR = 0.80; AVE = 0.58)
I was able to develop awareness on partner
tools, practice, and knowledge.
0.67
I was able to keep track of partner tools,
practice, or knowledge by consulting other
sources of information.
0.74
I was able to identify partner tools or practice
with the most significant value to the project
performance.
0.75
Ability to Assimilate (CR = 0.87, AVE=0.68)
I was able to learn the use of partner tools or
practice.
0.89
I was capable at understanding the tools,
practice, or knowledge embedded in the
partner.
0.89
I was adept at interpreting the use of tools,
practice, or knowledge embedded in the
partner.
0.67
Shared Cognition (CR = 0.77, AVE=0.46)
Our team was very competent in integrating
different views.
0.69
Our team was able to achieve an amicable
resolution of conflict and disagreement.
0.65
Our team was able to communicate collective
view across members.
0.65
Our team was able to take appropriate action
based on the collective view.
0.79
Ability to Utilize (CR = 0.78, AVE=0.54 )
Our team had the capability to effectively
apply partner knowledge.
0.67
Our team was able to enhance project
delivery by applying partner knowledge.
0.81
Our team had the capability to maximally
exploit partner knowledge.
0.72
4 ANALYSES AND RESULTS
Following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two step
technique, the overall measurement model for the 4
factors was assessed in a single CFA procedure. All
the items loaded on their specified factors.
Accordingly, the second step of the technique was
initiated. This involved the transposition of the
measurement model into the structural model, by
replacing the covariance paths (i.e. double edged
arrows) associated with the endogenous variable
with the hypothesized structural paths (i.e. single
edged arrows). The cut-off criterion for the selected
goodness of fit indices are χ
2
/ d.f. < 3; CFI > .90;
TLI > .90; RMSEA < .08 (Joreskog and Sorbom,
1986; Kline, 2005). The computed goodness-of-fit
indices from the AMOS 18 package revealed a good
fit to data (i.e. χ
2
/ d.f. = 1.944; RMSEA = .062; CFI
= .957, TLI = .942). Therefore, the model was
employed in testing the hypothesized effects.
A significant path was obtained from individual
ability to recognize the value of partner knowledge
to individual ability to assimilate the knowledge (β=
.612, p < 0.001), thus H1 was supported. The
relationship between individual ability to assimilate
partner knowledge and team ability to utilize the
knowledge was not significant (β = 0.119; p = ns),
thus H2 was not supported. The individual ability to
assimilate partner knowledge was found to be
significantly related to shared cognition (β = 0.275;
p < 0.001), thus H3 was supported. The outcome of
bootstrapping supported the significant mediating
(i.e. indirect) effect of shared cognition (β = 0.184; p
< 0.001). Thus, as hypothesized in H4, there is no
direct relationship between individual ability to
assimilate and team ability to utilize knowledge, but
both are indirectly linked through shared cognition.
Furthermore, in support of H5, shared cognition was
found to be significantly related to team ability to
utilize knowledge (β = 0.668; p < 0.001).
5 DISCUSSION
Following Zahra and George (2002) notion on
potential and realized ACAP, the abilities to
recognize value and assimilate knowledge were
found to be dominant at the individual level, while
the hypotheses on team’s shared cognition and
ability to utilize knowledge were supported.
However, contrary to Nemanich et al. (2010)
individual ability to assimilate knowledge was found
not to be directly associated with team ability to
utilize knowledge. Rather the indirect effect through
shared cognition was supported. Thus, the present
findings affirm shared cognition as the mechanism
through which individual potential are aggregated to
be collectively realized at the team level. Zahra and
George (2002) posited that the organisation is better
positioned to exploit the knowledge, which has been
assimilated by the members. Thus, the development
of deeper understanding on new concept is
underscored by individual assimilating ability,
which could impact on interaction with others.
Individuals with good awareness on a concept are
most likely to engage with others in deliberating
within the area of competency, thereby better
equipped to contribute in project execution. Crossan
AbsorptiveCapacityinJointProjectTeams-EvidencefromNigerianUpstreamOilIndustry
143
et al. (1999) contend that the assimilating ability of
individual is predicated on intuitive skills, which
could also facilitate engagement in collective
interpretation process. Accordingly, acquisition of
deeper understanding by team members could
aggregate to value exploitation at the collective
level, when there is a mechanism to support
collective interpretation. Furthermore, studies on
group learning suggest that the aggregation of
individually embedded knowledge is a necessary
precondition for team effectiveness in knowledge
intensive work domain, especially when creativity
and problem solving skills are required (Nahapiet
and Ghoshal, 1998). Thus, collective cognitive
capability through shared cognition ability is critical
to the application of individually assimilated
knowledge at the joint team level.
6 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER
WORK
Consistent with recent conceptualization of ACAP
as multidimensional construct (Zahra and George,
2002; Lane, et al. 2006; Todorova and Durisin,
2007; Nemanich, et al. 2010) the present findings
demonstrate the specific level corresponding to each
dimension. Nevertheless, further to the clarification
of the individual and team abilities underlying
knowledge acquisition and utilization in joint project
teams, this study also offers opportunities for further
research. Future studies should attempt to clarify the
effects of relevant antecedents on both the individual
and collective components of ACAP. There is also
need for study to investigate the mechanisms
through which individual components are linked to
the collective components. The impact of cultural
differences on ACAP within joint project is another
important area for future studies. Furthermore,
subsequent studies are expected to address some of
the limitations of this study. The use of longitudinal
design is recommended, so as to capture the
underlying temporal and causal effects of ACAP.
Also, the attendant weakness of the self-reported
survey could be minimized by incorporating data
from other sources. For example, future studies
should consider the perspective of the foreign team
members on the ACAP dimensions. Finally, the
validated model should be extended to other
contexts, in order to ascertain the generalization of
the findings.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W., 1988, ‘Structural
equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two stage approach’, Psychological
Bulletin 27(1), 5-24.
Chang Y.-Y., Gong, Y., and Peng, M. W., 2012,
‘Expatriate knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive
capacity, and subsidiary performance’, Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 927-948.
Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D. A., 1990, ‘Absorptive
Capacity: A new perspective on learning and
innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1)
128-152.
Cross, R., and Prusak, L., 2002. ‘The people who make
organizations go – or stop’, Harvard Business Review,
80(6), 104-112.
Crossan, M., Lane, H., and White, R., 1999. ‘An
organizational learning framework: From intuition to
institution’, Academy of Management Review, 24, 522-
538.
Hollingshead, A. B., 2001. ‘Cognitive interdependence
and convergent expectations in transactive memory’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
1080-1089.
Huber, G. P., 1991. ‘Organizational learning: The
contributing processes and the literature’,
Organisation Science, 2, 88–115.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., and Volberda, H.
W., 2005. ‘Managing potential and realized absorptive
capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter?’,
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 999-1015.
Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D., 1986. LISREL: Analysis
of linear structural relationships by the method of
maximum likelihood. Scientific Software Inc. Chicago,
4
th
edition.
Kankanhalli, A., Pee, L.G., Tan, G.W., and Chhatwal, S.,
2012. ‘Interaction of individual and social antecedents
of learning effectiveness: A study in the IT research
context’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 59, 115-128.
Klimoski R. J., and Mohammed, S., 1994. ‘Team mental
model: Construct or metaphor?’, Journal of
Management, 20, 403–437.
Kline, R. B., 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modeling. The Guilford Press. New York,
2
nd
edition.
Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims,
H. P., Smith, K. A., and Flood, P. C., 1999. ‘Top
management team diversity, group process, and
strategic consensus’, Strategic Management Journal,
20, 445–465.
Lane, P. J. and Lubatkin, M., 1998. ‘Relative absorptive
capacity and inter-organizational learning’, Strategic
Management Journal, 19, 461-77.
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., and Pathak, S., 2006. ‘The
reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review
and rejuvenation of the construct’, Academy of
Management Review, 31, 833-863
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
144
Laughlin, P. E., 1978. ‘Ability and group problem
solving’, Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 12, 114–120.
Lettl, C., Hienerth, C., and Gemuenden, H. G., 2008.
‘Exploring how lead users develop radical
innovations; Opportunity recognition and exploitation
in the field of medical equipment technology’, IEEE
Transaction on Engineering Management, 55, 219–
233.
Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S., and Peeters, C. (2011).
‘Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive
capacity routines’, Organization Science, 22, 81-98.
Lichtenthaler, U., 2009. ‘Absorptive capacity,
environment turbulence, and the complementarity of
organisation learning processes’, Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 822-846.
Lyles, M. A. and Salk, J. E., 1996. ‘Knowledge
acquisition from foreign parents in international joint
ventures: an empirical examination in the Hungarian
context’, Journal of International Business Studies,
27, 877-903.
McGrath, J. E. and Kravitz, D. A., 1982. ‘Group research’,
Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 195–230.
Nahapiet, J., and Ghoshal, S., 1998. ‘Social capital:
Intellectual capital and organizational advantage’,
Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.
Nemanich, L. A., Keller, R. T., Vera, D., and Chin, W.
W., 2010. ‘Absorptive capacity in R&D project teams:
A conceptualization and empirical test’, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 57, 674-
688.
Ojo, A. O., Raman, M., Chong, S. C., and Chong, C. W.,
2014. ‘Individual antecedents of ACAP and
implications of social context in joint engineering
project teams: A conceptual model’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, 18, 177-193.
Park, B. I., 2010. ‘What matters to managerial knowledge
acquisition in international joint ventures? High
knowledge acquirers versus low knowledge acquires’,
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27, 55-79.
Pedrosa, A. D. M, and Jasmand, C. (2011). Absorptive
Capacity at the Individual Level: A measurement
Scale and Nomological Network. Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the 71st Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management (AoM).
Rogers, E.M., 1976. ‘New product adoption and
diffusion’, Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 290–
301.
Schleimer C. S., and Pedersen, T., 2014. ‘The effects of
MNC parent effort and structure on subsidiary
absorptive capacity’, Journal of International
Business Studies, 45, 303-320.
Senge, P. M., 2006. The fifth discipline – The art and
practice of the learning organisational. Currency
Doubleday. New York, Revised edition.
Todorova, G. and Durisin, B., 2007. ‘Absorptive capacity:
valuing a reconceptualization’, Academy of
Management Review, 32, 774–786.
Tripsas, M., and Gavetti, G., 2000. ‘Capabilities,
cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging’,
Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1147–1161.
Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., and Lyles, M. A., 2010.
‘Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to
realize its potential in the organisation field’,
Organisation Science, 21, 931-951.
Walsh, J. P., and Ungson, G. R., 1991. ‘Organizational
memory’, Academy of Management Review, 16, 57–
91.
Weick, K. E., 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Sage,
ThousandOaks, CA.
Zahra, S. A., and George, G. (2002). ‘Absorptive capacity:
A review, reconceptualization, and extension’,
Academy of Management Review, 27, 185-203.
Zhao, Z. J., and Anand, J. (2009). ‘A multilevel
perspective on knowledge transfer: Evidence from the
Chinese automotive industry’, Strategic Management
Journal, 30, 959-983.
AbsorptiveCapacityinJointProjectTeams-EvidencefromNigerianUpstreamOilIndustry
145