Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

An empirical taxonomy of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services buyers:

An Absorptive Capacity approach
Rafael Teixeira a, Juliana Ballin Suzin b, Diego Augusto de Jesus Pacheco c, *,
Juliana Bonomi Santos d
a
Department of Supply Chain and Information Management, School of Business, College of Charleston, 5 Liberty St., Suite 300, Charleston, SC 29424, USA
b
Unisinos Business School, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Av. Unisinos 950, São Leopoldo, Brazil
c
Aarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences (Aarhus BSS), Department of Business Development and Technology, Herning, Denmark
d
FGV EAESP, Av. 9 de julho 2029, São Paulo, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The extant literature on the purchase of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) has dedicated limited
KIBS attention to how the knowledge of buyers influences the acquisition of these services. This study proposes an
Absorptive capacity empirical taxonomy to classify KIBS buying companies based on their capacity to absorb knowledge. It also
Taxonomy
assesses how their knowledge absorption profile influences the importance they attribute to KIBS purchases. Six
Technology services
Buyer–supplier
constructs (knowledge base, research and development (R&D) activities, interaction with other organizations,
Services attitude toward knowledge transfer, organizational structure for knowledge absorption, organizational culture
for knowledge absorption) were used to collect empirically grounded information through a comprehensive
survey conducted with 304 buying companies of KIBS. Our results suggest that KIBS buyers have four different
knowledge absorption profiles - Low Absorptive Capacity, R&D-based Absorptive Capacity, Acquisition-based
Absorptive Capacity, and Fully Developed Absorptive Capacity - which shape the importance attributed to the
KIBS purchased. This study contributes to understanding the profiles of KIBS buyers using an absorptive capacity
perspective and the implications for providers’ selection decisions. By examining underdeveloped research
themes that still require attention, this study assists practitioners, scholars, and policy-makers in addressing the
challenges and mechanisms of knowledge transfer and innovation in companies buying KIBS.

1. Introduction
This paper addresses the absorptive capacity of buyers that is
necessary for value cocreation in Knowledge-Intensive Business Services
(KIBS). KIBS are knowledge-based, customized products and services
that offer solutions to the specific needs of buyers (Azzari, Mainardes,
Beiruth, & da Costa, 2021; Bettencourt, Ostrom, Brown, & Roundtree,
2002), such as software development, accounting, consulting and
research and development. Buyers’ absorptive capacity refers to the
ability of companies to acquire, assimilate and employ knowledge for
commercial purposes (Todorova & Durisin, 2007).
The literature has widely acknowledged the importance of knowl­
edge in KIBS delivery (Azzari et al., 2021; Eisingerich & Bell, 2007;
Santos & Spring, 2015; Strambach, 2008). When buyers have knowl­
edge, skills and capabilities regarding their situational opportunities,
resources and constraints (Azzari et al., 2021), they can more easily
share information, express their concerns and perform their roles
(Eichentopf, Kleinaltenkamp, & van Stiphout, 2011; Eisingerich & Bell,
2007), thereby improving the service effectiveness (Hsieh & Hiang,
2004), buyer satisfaction (Dong, Sivakumar, Evans, & Shaoming, 2015),
and sales performance of service providers (Eisingerich, Auh, & Merlo,
2014).
Buyers also benefit more from the knowledge, ideas and information
coming from KIBS providers (Hertog, 2000; Muller & Zenker, 2001)
when they understand what they are buying and know how to use it. For
example, a company purchasing a software service can obtain more
benefits if it knows how to implement the software, train its personnel,
and use the software properly. Given the importance of buyers’
knowledge, KIBS providers educate them during service delivery to
improve their ability to participate in and benefit from KIBS purchases

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: teixeirar@cofc.edu (R. Teixeira), julianasuzin@hotmail.com (J.B. Suzin), diego@btech.au.dk (D.A. de Jesus Pacheco), juliana.bonomi@fgv.br
(J.B. Santos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.11.003
Received 13 November 2021; Received in revised form 31 October 2022; Accepted 6 November 2022
Available online 1 December 2022
0019-8501/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
R. Teixeira et al.
(Auh, Bell, McLeod, & Shih, 2007; Eisingerich & Bell, 2007; Santos &
Spring, 2015; Silva & Santos, 2021).
Interestingly, the literature on how buyers purchase KIBS and select
providers (D’Antone & Santos, 2016; Lian & Laing, 2007; Pemer, Sie­
weke, Werr, Birkner, & Mohe, 2014; Pemer, Werr, & Bianchi, 2014) has
dedicated limited attention to investigating how buyers’ knowledge
influences their purchasing decisions. Moreover, studies recognizing the
importance of buyers’ knowledge in KIBS delivery processes (Auh et al.,
2007; Eisingerich et al., 2014; Santos & Spring, 2015; Silva & Santos,
2021) have focused mainly on buyers’ knowledge stock levels, over­
looking that such knowledge comes from buyers’ lived experiences and
various other sources (Azzari et al., 2021), and it is influenced by buying
companies’ processes to absorb external knowledge (Monteiro & Bir­
kinshaw, 2017), internalise it, and use it in existing routines (Love,
Roper, & Vahter, 2014; Rodriguez, Doloreux, & Shearmur, 2017; Roper,
Du, & Love, 2008; West & Bogers, 2014).
This heterogeneity in buyers’ knowledge acquisition, absorption,
and usage gives rise to different knowledge profiles in buying com­
panies, influencing the services that they must buy and the perceived
value attributed to KIBS (Mustak, 2019; Siahtiri, Heirati, & O’Cass,
2020). For instance, if a given buyer does not have experience with
purchasing and using a technical offering, such as control systems, the
supplier can provide consulting services to enrich the buyer’s knowledge
and prepare it for the service encounter and delivery. Conversely, if the
buyer knows the technical aspects of the services purchased but has
difficulty internally implementing the solution acquired in use, then the
supplier should focus on providing training.
Thus, understanding the profile of KIBS buyers can be of strategic
importance for providers since they can make decisions to best match
these profiles. Building on this rationale, we set out to answer the
following research question: RQ1. How can buyers of KIBS be classified
based on their knowledge absorption characteristics? This study aims to
develop an empirical taxonomy to classify KIBS buyers based on
knowledge absorption characteristics to better understand their buying
behavior during service provision. We conceptualize that knowledge
absorption is related to the importance of KIBS, implying that buyers
with higher knowledge absorption capacity are more likely to extract
value from KIBS and therefore attribute more importance to these ser­
vices, motivating our second research question examined in this study:
RQ2. To what extent does the knowledge absorption profile influence the
importance that buyers of KIBS attribute to different KIBS?
Drawing on absorptive capacity theory (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990),
we propose that the knowledge profile of KIBS buyers can be assessed in
terms of the following related variables: prior knowledge, attitude to­
ward knowledge transfer, organizational structure and culture for
knowledge absorption, and interaction with other organizations and
their research and development (R&D) activities. From the constructs
distilled from the relevant literature, we then devise a quantitative
empirical investigation based on a large-scale survey to map KIBS
buyers’ knowledge sources and absorption processes, and we use cluster
analysis to classify groups of KIBS buyers based on their knowledge
profiles. Finally, we assess how each group of buyers evaluates the value
of the KIBS purchased, assessing the importance attributed by the buyers
to the product/service development processes.
This study is the first to respond to the calls for empirical research
investigating how contextual differences in buyer-provider relationships
in KIBS generate different outcomes (Siahtiri et al., 2020; Mustak, 2019;
Saemundsson & Candi, 2017; Von Nordenflycht, 2010). We show that
different buyers’ knowledge profiles influence the value attributed to
the type of KIBS purchased. In doing so, the study extends the literature
on the role of buyers’ knowledge in the KIBS delivery process (Silva &
Santos, 2021; Santos & Spring, 2015; Eichentopf et al., 2011; Auh et al.,
2007; Bell & Eisingerich, 2007) in two primary ways. First, the findings
show that we must understand the complex nuances in buyer-supplier
KIBS interactions rather than only considering buyers’ knowledge.
Suppliers must play their role in acquiring and providing knowledge
150
Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164
(Jiebing, Bin, & Yongjiang, 2013) differently, depending on how buyers
differ in their knowledge absorption capacity (Easterby-Smith, Graça,
Antonacopoulou, & Ferdinand, 2008). Second, using the theoretical lens
of absorptive capacity, we shed light on aspects of knowledge that come
from buyers’ lived experiences (Azzari et al., 2021), which are relevant
to understanding their interest in purchasing KIBS. In this way, we
reveal that buyers’ knowledge is an essential factor influencing the
provider selection decision, adding to the current literature on KIBS
purchases (D’Antone & Santos, 2016; Pemer, Sieweke, et al., 2014;
Pemer, Werr, & Bianchi, 2014; Wang & Li, 2017).
For KIBS suppliers, we show the internal and external factors that
stimulate buyers with different knowledge profiles to buy KIBS,
providing insights into identifying new potential consumers and better
serving existing ones. Furthermore, these research findings contribute to
theory and practice, emphasizing the importance of making a clear
distinction between different types of KIBS concerning the potential of
absorptive capacity of buyers. Overall, the research provides new in­
sights into the empirical business and industrial marketing literature.
The theoretical framework developed provides essential guidance for
future research on knowledge absorption among buyers of KIBS.
The remaining part of the paper proceeds as follows. The following
section details the theoretical background and theoretical dimensions of
interest to the research. Then, the methods used to collect and analyze
the data are detailed. Next, the quantitative results that lead to devel­
oping the taxonomy are described in the results section. Section five
discusses the findings and implications for theory and practice. Finally,
conclusions, limitations and future research agendas for this important
research stream are presented.
2. Literature review
2.1. The role of knowledge in KIBS delivery processes
KIBS are customized combinations of knowledge-based products and
services designed according to buyers’ specifications to address their
specific needs (Bettencourt et al., 2002). These solutions come in many
forms, such as helping buyers implement new processes, promote
organizational changes or develop new technologies, products and ser­
vices (Silva & Santos, 2021). These services use knowledge as their
primary input (Muller & Doloreux, 2009).
Service providers employ a skilled workforce to diagnose buyers’
problems, determine a recommended solution, and implement it
(Desyllas, Miozzo, Lee, & Miles, 2018). These individuals build their
recommendations on the knowledge that they have of specific domains,
buyers, and past situations experienced (Nordenflycht, 2010; Miles,
2005), as well as on knowledge codified in reports, databases, infor­
mation and knowledge management systems and embedded in organi­
zational routines and best practices (Desyllas et al., 2018).
Buyers’ knowledge is also essential to the KIBS process since it en­
ables them to share more accurate information about their needs, make
informed decisions, engage in problem solving, and perform tasks
necessary for service delivery (Bettencourt, 1997; Bettencourt et al.,
2002; Eisingerich et al., 2014; Santos & Spring, 2015). Buyers’ knowl­
edge involves the skills, knowledge, and capabilities regarding their
situational opportunities, resources and constraints concerning the ser­
vice purchased (Azzari et al., 2021) that shape their understanding of
how the service is to be delivered and of how to assess its performance
(Auh et al., 2007; Bell, Auh, & Smalley, 2005; Eisingerich & Bell, 2007).
Therefore, this type of knowledge is also embedded in the people and
routines involved in buying KIBS.
Despite this aspect, the literature on the purchase of KIBS has over­
looked the role that buyers’ knowledge plays in shaping purchasing
decisions (D’Antone & Santos, 2016). It has either focused on the
involvement of the purchasing function in decision-making or the role of
aspects, such as uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity orienta­
tion (Pemer, Sieweke, et al., 2014; Pemer, Werr, & Bianchi, 2014),
R. Teixeira et al.
buyers’ risk propensity (Mitchell, 1999), and the level of trust and
commitment with the supplier (Day & Barksdale, 2003; Fitzsimmons,
Noh, & Thies, 1998; Lian & Laing, 2007).
2.2. Absorptive capacity and the path to KIBS buyers’ knowledge
Companies buying KIBS vary considerably in terms of their knowl­
edge levels, an aspect that has been extensively explored in the literature
(Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakkola, 2012; Bettencourt et al., 2002; Eisin­
gerich & Bell, 2007; Santos & Spring, 2015; Silva & Santos, 2021).
Buyers with higher knowledge levels are better equipped to process new
information, distinguish relevant from irrelevant facts, and realize the
full potential of their purchase (Auh et al., 2007; Bell et al., 2005).
However, building on the concept of absorptive capacity, we argue
that it is important to look beyond the notion of knowledge level to
understand the knowledge of KIBS buyers as well as its potential to
achieve better results. The idea of absorptive capacity proposed by
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) refers to the company’s collective abilities
to evaluate and exploit external knowledge for commercial purposes.
Companies must acquire new external knowledge and assimilate,
transform, and apply it to develop new products, services, and processes
(Monteiro & Birkinshaw, 2017; Roberts, Galluch, Dinger, & Grover,
2012; Zahra & George, 2002). Firms’ absorptive capacity depends on
their organizational knowledge and on the existing structures to obtain
and absorb the knowledge acquired (Vega-Jurado, Gutiérrez-Gracia, &
Fernández-De-Lucio, 2008).
Todorova and Durisin (2007) argued that absorbing, assimilating
and applying new knowledge depend on the company’s knowledge
structures, cognitive biases and current market trends. Lewin, Massini,
and Peeters (2011) theorized the role of internal and external meta­
routines as microfoundations for absorptive capacity. More specifically,
the author discussed how daily routines, for example, open office plans
to foster interactions or collaboration with suppliers, set the basis for
absorptive capacity capabilities. Thus, absorptive capacity is contingent
on certain companies’ organizational elements, including a supportive
culture and structure (Ali, Ali, Al-Maimani, & Park, 2018; Lewin et al.,
2011; Naqshbandi & Kamel, 2017; Wang & Li, 2017).
For instance, KIBS buyers might rely on the knowledge of their em­
ployees, develop knowledge internally through their R&D departments,
and acquire knowledge from the interaction with the provider during
service delivery. During the development of the solution, providers
transfer knowledge, ideas and information to their buyers (Muller &
Zenker, 2001), teach them how to perform specific tasks, and support
their decision-making (Auh et al., 2007; Eisingerich & Bell, 2007). KIBS
buyers might also interact with other external actors (Lau & Lo, 2015)
and obtain information and knowledge from reports, academic articles,
and patent databases (Yam et al., 2011). Therefore, KIBS buyers can
have different knowledge profiles depending on their existing organi­
zational characteristics that enable knowledge absorption.
Based on a comprehensive literature review on absorptive capacity,
Lane, Koka, and Pathak (2006) propose four central organizational de­
terminants of absorptive capacity: existing knowledge, mechanisms to
facilitate the understanding of new knowledge and the presence of an
organizational structure and shared mental models to enable the
assimilation, distribution, and application of knowledge. Building on
these four aspects, we propose six determinant elements necessary to
understand KIBS buyers’ knowledge using the absorptive capacity lens.
Organizational knowledge encompasses firms’ knowledge bases and
R&D activities (Murovec & Prodan, 2009; Vega-Jurado et al., 2008).
Thus, we considered these two crucial elements to understand the dif­
ferences in KIBS buyers’ knowledge profiles. Absorptive capacity is also
enhanced when firms know how easy it will be to learn and use external
knowledge (Lane et al., 2006). This situation happens when they are
open to external knowledge and can identify its relevance to the com­
pany (Lane, Salk, & Lyles, 2001; Murovec & Prodan, 2009). We also
included attitude toward external knowledge as another dimension in
151
Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164
our analysis.
Furthermore, the organizational structure should promote integra­
tion within the firm and develop strong ties with external partners (Lane
et al., 2006). We argue that KIBS buyers can also differ regarding how
their organizational structure enables knowledge absorption and how
they interact with external partners. In this way, the company can
facilitate the distribution and recombination of knowledge and reduce
barriers to exchanging information internally and with partners (Mur­
ovec & Prodan, 2009). Finally, organizational cultures create shared
mental models in firms’ employees (Bortolotti, Boscari, & Danese, 2015;
Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez, & Sanz-Valle, 2016). Specific
models can stimulate the creativity with which firms recognize and
apply knowledge (Lane et al., 2006). Therefore, KIBS buyers can have
different knowledge profiles depending on how much their organiza­
tional culture promotes knowledge absorption. In summary, these six
determinants are critical to providing a comprehensive understanding of
KIBS buyers because they capture internal and external organizational
perspectives of absorptive capacity.
Next, we examine in more detail each of the six determinant ele­
ments necessary to understand KIBS buyers’ knowledge using the
absorptive capacity lens: firms’ knowledge base, R&D activities, attitude
toward external knowledge, the organizational structure for knowledge
absorption, interaction with partners, and organizational culture to
absorb knowledge.
2.2.1. Knowledge base
The knowledge base refers to the knowledge accumulated by the
company (i.e., the KIBS buyer) throughout its history and involves the
skills and experiences of individual members, the use of problem-solving
methods, and shared language (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Cohen &
Levinthal, 1989; Smith, Collins, & Clark, 2005; Vega-Jurado et al.,
2008). The knowledge base also encompasses the individual units of
scientific, technical or academic knowledge already assimilated by the
organization and manifested in documents, routines, processes, prac­
tices, and organizational norms (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). The
knowledge base is a crucial element supporting buyers’ absorptive ca­
pacity because it serves as the basis for connection to new knowledge.
Buying companies innovate through the development and combi­
nation of new and old knowledge. The amount of knowledge stock in­
fluences the development of absorptive capacity because it is unlikely
that a company will absorb knowledge in an area where it does not have
previous expertise (Lane et al., 2006; Miles, 2005). Additionally, the
accumulated prior knowledge increases the ability to understand,
assimilate, use, adapt and associate previous knowledge with new
knowledge (Daghfous, 2004). For example, in joint development or
contracting of R&D projects, the differences between the source (e.g.,
KIBS providers) and the recipient (i.e., KIBS buyers) can represent a
particular difficulty in the knowledge transfer process that can deter­
mine the success (or failure) of the project (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005).
Thus, for organizational learning to occur, the knowledge gap between
the two parties must be narrow (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998; Miles, 2005;
Argote, 2012). For this reason, it is important to assess the knowledge
base in relation to other parties.
2.2.2. R&D activities
R&D activities involve the front- and back-end processes needed to
create new ideas and technologies and those required to put these new
offerings on the market (Tatikonda & Zeithaml, 2002). The buyer’s
ability to explore external knowledge is often a consequence of its R&D
activities and the training of the personnel directly involved in it (Cohen
& Levinthal, 1989, 1990; Daghfous, 2004; Monteiro & Birkinshaw,
2017; Murovec & Prodan, 2009) for two reasons. First, R&D activities
contribute to the internal development of knowledge, increasing
knowledge bases (Vega-Jurado et al., 2008) and defining the internal
capacity to generate innovation (Doloreux, Shearmur, & Guillaume,
2015).
R. Teixeira et al.
Second, R&D activities are central elements enabling absorptive
capacity because they create the knowledge base and processes that help
the buyer absorb (i.e., acquire, assimilate, transform, and explore) new
knowledge developed by other organizations (Lewin et al., 2011;
Todorova & Durisin, 2007). They do so by formalizing processes of
knowledge accumulation, such as the creation of innovation processes
handbooks and stage-gate models, and by promoting the acquisition of
scientific knowledge (Becheikh, Landry, & Amara, 2006). R&D activities
also shape the buyer’s innovation processes (Doloreux et al., 2015),
determining whether the company will be more open to collaboration
with external partners (Becheikh et al., 2006) and have a greater need to
absorb knowledge.
2.2.3. Attitude toward external knowledge
Knowledge transfer is a process through which organizational actors
(e.g., teams, organizational units, or companies) exchange knowledge
and are mutually influenced by this experience (Dameri & Demartini,
2020; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). A positive attitude toward the external
knowledge transferred to the organization is crucial for developing an
environment that contributes to the ability to absorb new knowledge
(Murovec & Prodan, 2009). According to these authors, if companies
and their employees display the “not invented here” syndrome, they
might not recognize the value of external knowledge and be reluctant to
assimilate and use it.
Therefore, organizations must exert efforts to enable the application
of the knowledge transferred and to anticipate its value (Lane et al.,
2001; Smith et al., 2005). Such efforts involve actions to recognize the
usefulness of new knowledge, assess how to exploit such knowledge and
match this knowledge with preexisting projects (Ferreras-Méndez,
Fernández-Mesa, & Alegre, 2016). It is essential to have the motivation
or intention to adopt the new knowledge (Monteiro & Birkinshaw, 2017;
Pérez-Nordtvedt, Kedia, Datta, & Rasheed, 2008). Such mechanisms
help the organization recognize how easy it will be to use external
knowledge and learn (Argote, 2012), enhancing firms’ absorptive ca­
pacity (Lane et al., 2006). Other scholars argue that the ability to absorb
knowledge without the motivation and mechanisms to use it, or the
reverse, is likely to result in poor performance (Dameri & Demartini,
2020; Martin & Salomon, 2003; Simonin, 2004). Conversely, empirical
evidence suggests that the recipient’s efforts regarding any knowledge
transfer influence the successful absorption of this knowledge (Argote,
Ingram, Levine, & Moreland, 2000; 2012).
2.2.4. Organizational structure for knowledge absorption
The organizational structure reflects the administrative hierarchy’s
structure, operational processes, relative size, and complexity (Harper,
2015). Since knowledge depends on individuals, buying firms must
develop the necessary knowledge-sharing structures. An organizational
structure supporting knowledge absorption can be understood as one
allowing for the acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and use of
external knowledge (Burton & Obel, 1995; Van den Bosch, Volberda, &
de Boer, 1999). Therefore, a buyer’s current knowledge base cannot be
separated from its existing structure (Kogut & Zander, 1992). Organi­
zational mechanisms that increase coordination, such as cross-
functional interfaces, participatory decision-making, and job rotation,
enhance knowledge acquisition and assimilation (Jansen, Van Den
Bosch, & Volberda, 2005). Mechanisms that enable open communica­
tion between employees of different backgrounds are also important in
promoting the cross-fertilization of ideas and improve decision-making
(Hogan & Coote, 2014; Seleim & Khalil, 2011). Organizational struc­
tures promoting integration between functional areas help the entire
process of absorptive capacity (Ali et al., 2018). As such, more hori­
zontal structures encourage the socialization of knowledge, improving
communication and absorptive capacity. Van den Bosch et al. (1999)
corroborated this assumption by identifying that the company’s
absorptive capacity also exists due to the deliberate choices of its
organizational forms and the ability to ssytematize knowledge.
152
Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164
2.2.5. Interaction with other organizations
Interaction with other organizations refers to how central or close
the buyer is to other organizations. It reflects the strength of the ties
between parties (Capaldo, 2007). Strong ties facilitate access to external
information and the acquisition of tacit knowledge (Lane et al., 2006),
enabling companies to respond to changes in demand for skills due to an
abundant supply of know-how. Empirical studies have shown the
importance of frequent interactions and cooperation with external
parties when developing or improving products, production processes,
delivery systems and marketing activities (Becheikh et al., 2006; Mur­
ovec & Prodan, 2009; Rodriguez et al., 2017). Close trust-based inter­
organizational interactions are a potential source of knowledge for
buyers, generating greater capacity to absorb innovative practices
(Zahra & George, 2002) for different reasons.
Trust facilitates knowledge transfer since it increases the willingness
of partners to share knowledge and creates commitment to the absorp­
tion of the knowledge transferred (Das & Teng, 1998; Inkpen & Tsang,
2005; Roberts et al., 2012). Moreover, such relationships create inter­
dependence between the parties, encouraging them to meet frequently,
exchange information, and engage in joint planning (Zacharia, Nix, &
Lusch, 2011). This open communication level facilitates learning (Tu
et al., 2006). A close relationship between the knowledge source and the
recipient can also be associated with a better understanding of the
knowledge transferred since parties can develop a common language
(Reagans & McEvily, 2003).
2.2.6. Organizational culture for knowledge absorption
Organizational culture is the pattern of values and beliefs shared
over time within an organization that produces norms of behavior
(Bortolotti et al., 2015; Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2016). It is a set of so­
lutions taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and
feel about organizational problems. Differences in organizational cul­
ture can significantly impair the relationships of knowledge transfer and
absorption (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Islam, Jasimuddin, & Hasan, 2015)
since norms and values define the aspects that are acceptable and un­
acceptable in a workplace (Chatman et al., 2014). Such standards pro­
vide predictability and understanding between the parties and ensure
that a common approach is adopted to transfer and absorb knowledge.
Empirical evidence has shown that cultural values focusing on the
external environment and adaptation encourage knowledge acquisition
and assimilation. In contrast, focusing on the internal environment and
stability promotes knowledge transformation and exploitation (Lee,
Chen, & Shiue, 2017). An organizational culture that encourages risk-
taking, innovation, experimentation, and exploration promotes collab­
oration, open communication, and problem-solving (Hogan & Coote,
2014), enhancing firms’ absorptive capacity.
2.3. Toward a taxonomy of KIBS buyers’ knowledge absorption profiles
The six factors discussed above can be considered elements that
promote organizational absorptive capacity. Therefore, this study builds
on them to propose an empirical taxonomy to classify KIBS buyers’
knowledge absorption capacity in different profiles. The determination
of homogeneous groups of companies based on taxonomies has been an
important research topic in the general management literature (Rose­
nzweig, Laseter, & Roth, 2011; Menor, Roth, & Mason, 2001; Fahey &
Christensen, 1986). Empirical taxonomies help to organize unstructured
information into a cohesive framework that provides a meaningful way
to examine complex phenomena. Most research has recognized that
companies can be classified by multiple variables best characterized by
the gestalt of the communalities that they share (Miller & Friesen, 1977).
Thus, the complexity of companies can be better understood, evaluated,
and analyzed through classification (Ketchen & Shook, 1996; Ketchen,
Thomas, & Snow, 1993). In this vein, taxonomies provide descriptions of
strategic groups that help discuss and investigate categories and
generate insights into the underlying structures of competition from the
R. Teixeira et al. Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164

point of view of operations (Miller & Roth, 1994). Since buyers of KIBS Table 1
vary in many characteristics, understanding this variability through a Sample information.
taxonomy will offer a meaningful way to understand the profiles of these Sector of KIBS buyers Frequency Relative frequency (%)
buyers and navigate these service markets.
Processing or extraction industry 188 61.8
IT services 51 16.8
3. Methods Telecommunication 48 15.8
Engineering and architectural services 7 72.3
3.1. Survey procedure and sample Technical testing and analysis 5 1.6
R&D 3 1
Gas and electricity 2 0.7
We conducted a comprehensive grounded survey with 304 buyers of Total 304 100
KIBS to collect data, develop the proposed taxonomy, and assess the
importance of KIBS to these buyers. A survey is a consolidated method Size of KIBS buyers Frequency Relative frequency (%)
used in business and industrial marketing research to originate taxon­ Micro company (0–19 employees) 42 13.8
omies for different contexts (Von Nordenflycht, 2010; Menor et al., Small company (20–99 employees) 156 51.3
2001; Miller & Roth, 1994). Medium company (100–499 employees) 83 27.3
Large company (500 - employees) 23 7.6
To obtain a representative sample of the population of KIBS buyers,
Total 304 100
the authors contacted different KIBS providers who agreed to collabo­
rate with this study and provided their database of customers (i.e., KIBS
buyers). The following groups of organizations provided their client recipient of the knowledge and other parties must be narrow to generate
lists: (i) ten Brazilian universities recognized by their record of selling organizational knowledge (Miles, 2005).
KIBS services; (ii) twenty professional and governmental institutions; In the case of the Attitude toward external knowledge transfer (AKT)
and (iii) eight specialized laboratories that sell KIBS to companies. scale, building on the items from the work of Ferreras-Méndez et al.
Confidentiality terms were used to preserve the identity of the KIBS (2016) on knowledge transfer, we used five items to represent the pos­
providers and their buyers and to ensure research integrity and com­ itive attitude toward knowledge transfer proposed by Murovec and
mercial secrecy. Prodan (2009) and Smith et al. (2005). The Organizational Culture for
The population selection criteria were companies that had purchased Knowledge Absorption (CUL) scale was elaborated based on the innova­
KIBS services in the previous twelve months, resulting in a list of two tion dimension of the Organizational Culture Profile instrument
thousand buyers. The target respondent to the survey was the senior (O’Reiley, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991) using the items proposed by
manager responsible for the KIBS purchases in the company. Survey Baird, Jia, and K. and Reeve, R. (2011) due to their conciseness.
respondents with management positions tend to be more reliable sour­ We combined the measures of combinative capabilities from Jansen
ces of information than those in positions with low management re­ et al. (2005) and the wording used by Seleim and Khalil (2011) to create
sponsibilities (Phillips, 1981). the Organizational structure for knowledge absorption (STR) scale. In the
To collect the data, we first sent an email to the entire list of KIBS case of the R&D activities (R&D) scale, we developed five items to
buyers in January 2018, which contained a link to the online ques­ represent how Murovec and Prodan (2009) and Vega-Jurado et al.
tionnaire. In the first wave, we obtained 114 responses. Ten days later, (2008) measured R&D activities. Finally, the Interaction with other or­
we emailed all nonrespondents and called them to provide information ganizations (INT) scale resulted from selecting the five items that
about the survey, obtaining an additional 46 responses. As a final effort explicitly describe interaction between organizations from the scale of
to increase our sample size, twenty days after our last interaction with collaborative engagement used by Zacharia et al. (2011). After putting
respondents, we called again and requested that they answer the survey the items together in English, the first author formulated the questions in
by phone, obtaining 144 responses. We conducted a chi-square test to Portuguese. The other authors revised the translation to see if all items
test for differences in B2B buyer size among waves (χ 2=14.37, df = 6, P captured the intended meaning. Appendix A shows the items used to
= 0.03) and methods of data collection (χ 2=7.44, df = 3, P = 0.06) and measure each construct.
found no significant differences at a 0.01 significance level. That is, B2B Respondents were asked to rate their perceptions of each measure­
buyers were not different in size for the different waves and data ment item using a Likert-type scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally
collection methods. We also conducted a chi-square test to test for dif­ agree) in all but those related to R&D activities. Specifically, in the
ferences in the B2B buyer industry segment among waves (χ 2=18.49, df questions related to this construct, we used a scale ranging from 1 (not
= 12, P = 0.10) and methods of data collection (χ 2=2.67, df = 6, P = important) to 5 (very important) since these items measure the impor­
0.85) and found no significant differences at a 0.01 significance level. tance of certain aspects to respondents. The respondents were also asked
The final sample comprises 304 companies (response rate = 15.2%). questions about firm size, location, and industry.
These KIBS buyers are located in national (91.1%) and international We also included measurement items to assess the importance of
(8.9%) markets. The profiles of the respondents included managers (n = KIBS for buyers in our sample. Respondents were asked to rate the
268; 88.1%), supervisors (n = 20; 6.6%), directors (n = 12; 3.9%), and importance of the following KIBS for their company’s product and
others (n = 4; 1.4%). Additional sample information is provided in process development: (i) management consulting services; (ii) archi­
Table 1. tecture and construction engineering services; (iii) product/prototype
testing and technical services; (iv) R&D for engineering and natural
3.2. Measures development sciences (engineering, physics, chemistry, computer science, etc.); and
(v) R&D for social sciences (management, economics, education, etc.). A
Measurement items were created to capture respondents’ percep­ scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important) was used to
tions about our constructs of interest. Since no previous studies oper­ capture respondents’ perceptions.
ationalized all constructs of interest, we developed our measurement The entire survey instrument consisted of 39 questions distributed in
items by combining insights from theoretical sources with existing three sections: (i) three items for demographic information about the
measures used in other contexts and studies. In the Knowledge base (KB) companies; (ii) 31 items to capture the constructs proposed in the
scale, we created one measure to capture individuals’ educational levels literature review section; and (iii) five items to assess the importance of
and technical knowledge, based on the study by Vega-Jurado et al. KIBS for companies. As Forza (2002) recommended, we took several
(2008), and created three questions to assess the firms’ knowledge gaps measures to assure the quality of our measurement instrument and
with main knowledge providers since the knowledge gap between the measures, as described in the following sections.

153
R. Teixeira et al. Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164

3.3. Pretests Table 2

Loadings, Composite Reliability and Extracted Average Variance.
We conducted two pretests. In the first one, we asked two groups of Construct Measurement item Standardized Std. CR Cronbach’s
managers of KIBS-buying firms and one group of scholars specializing in loadings error and Alpha
the topic to answer the questionnaire, assess its clarity, and point out AVE
items that were obvious, unnecessary, or required improvement in KB My company’s 0.74 0.06 0.82 0.83
wording. In the discussions with scholars, we also assessed whether the knowledge base is
questionnaire accomplished the study’s objectives and the extent to superior to that of
our suppliers and
which the administrative procedures were effective (c.f. Forza, 2002). partners
Based on these efforts, we adjusted the wording of items with inter­ My company’s 0.93 0.06 0.61
pretation problems and decided to eliminate five items (see Appendix A) knowledge base is
considered redundant by these experts. different from that
of our suppliers
In the second pretest, we sent the final version of the questionnaire to
and partners
15 companies that had purchased KIBS services in the previous twelve My company has a 0.65 0.05
months (target population). Our objective was to perform an exploratory technical
assessment of the measures and find any problems in the data collection knowledge level
procedure (Forza, 2002). Descriptive statistics analyses revealed no that allows it to
interact easily with
concerns about the variability of the items across respondents or the other companies
variability of each item and suggested positive correlations between AKT My company tries 0.80 0.02 0.84 0.84
items of the same construct. Since no problems were found, we pro­ to quickly assess
ceeded with the data collection. the usefulness of
external
knowledge and
3.4. Validity and reliability assessment relate it to its
operations
After the data collection, we conducted a confirmatory factor anal­ My company 0.80 0.02 0.64
ysis (CFA) to find evidence supporting the validity of the measurement critically evaluates
the value of
model (Forza, 2002). Four items were eliminated at this stage because of external
poor loadings (see Appendix A) (Hair et al., 2006; Kline, 2005). The knowledge to its
goodness-of-fit results suggest that the model has a good fit (Hair et al., operations
2006; Kline, 2005): CFI = 0.965, SRMR = 0.035, RMSEA = 0.062, p My company tries 0.79 0.02
to determine how
(RMSEA ≤0.05) =0.014. Table 2 shows that all measurement items
external
presented significant loadings equal to or greater than 0.5, indicating knowledge can be
convergent validity. We also assess convergent validity using each used in its R&D
construct’s average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability activities
(CR). The AVE values were higher than 0.5, and the CR was higher than CUL My company 0.80 0.02 0.90 0.90
values employees
0.7, confirming convergent validity for the measurement items and their who are proactive
respective constructs (Hair et al., 2006). in adopting
Table 3 presents the correlation matrix for the constructs. We innovative ideas
assessed discriminant validity between constructs by comparing two and experimenting
My company 0.85 0.02 0.69
models for each pair of constructs: an unconstrained model in which two
values cooperation
constructs are free to correlate and a constrained model in which the in the work
constructs’ correlation is set to one (Bagozzi & Philips, 1982). The un­ environment to
constrained model has a better fit because it allows constructs to promote
correlate freely, while the constrained model forces a full correlation. If innovation
My company is 0.89 0.02
constructs do not discriminate, then the unconstrained model would open to innovation
correlate close to one, and no differences are observed between the pairs My company 0.78 0.03
of constructs. If the constructs discriminate, then the models are quickly takes
significantly different. We performed a chi-square ratio test to determine advantage of
opportunities and
the differences between these two models. A statistically significant
new ideas to
difference at the 0.05 significance level provides evidence of discrimi­ improve products
nant validity. We conducted this test for all pairs of constructs. Table 4 and processes
shows the results, indicating that all pairs of constructs differ from one STR My company is 0.76 0.03 0.84 0.84
another. We chose this technique because it produces results similar to designed to help
employees to meet
methods based on confidence intervals for large sample sizes, such as
and discuss new
ours, but it has a lower risk of misapplication (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). ideas
The score of each construct was obtained from the CFA procedure using The 0.86 0.02 0.64
the loading of each measurement item in its respective construct. communication in
my company is
simple and equally
3.5. Common method bias and nonresponse bias spread across all
levels
The following methodological measures were undertaken to reduce My company has 0.78 0.03
the impact of common method bias in the research (Craighead, Ketchen, hierarchical levels
that help to
Dunn, & Hult, 2011; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). First, sytematize
the variables were randomly distributed in the questionnaire, reducing communication
the likelihood that respondents could cross-check their internal consis­ (continued on next page)
tency (Craighead et al., 2011). Second, we pretested the questionnaire

154
R. Teixeira et al. Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164

Table 2 (continued ) Table 4

Construct Measurement item Standardized Std. CR Cronbach’s
χ 2difference test for constrained and unconstrained pairs of constructs.
loadings error and Alpha Construct 1 Construct 2 Constrained (=1) Unconstrained χ2
AVE 2 2 difference
χ (g.l.) χ (g.l.)
and enable
information flows KB AKT 82.63 (9) 9.34 (8) 73.30 ***
in the organization KB CUL 152.80 (14) 46.64 (13) 106.16***
R&D How important are 0.91 0.01 0.97 0.96 KB STR 724.70 (9) 21.41 (8) 703.29***
R&D activities for KB R&D 133.11 (20) 35.24 (19) 97.87***
your company? KB INT 123.52 (9) 11.82 (8) 111.69***
How important is 0.85 0.02 0.85 AKT CUL 1097.87 (14) 47.99 (13) 1049.89***
developing R&D AKT STR 49.19 (9) 34.20 (8) 14.99***
knowledge? AKT R&D 112.56 (20) 29.36 (19) 83.20***
How important is 0.98 0.01 AKT INT 25.55 (9) 6.78 (8) 18.77***
acquiring external CUL STR 138.24 (14) 125.99 (13) 12.25***
knowledge for CUL R&D 164.51 (27) 41.69 (26) 122.82***
your company? CUL INT 916.65 (14) 54.51 (13) 862.14***
How important is 0.94 0.01 STR R&D 569.53 (20) 37.74 (19) 531.79***
training your STR INT 73.72 (9) 29.64 (8) 44.08***
employees R&D INT 966.34 (20) 30.43 (19) 935.90***
involved in R&D Note: ***p < 0.01.
activities?
How important are 0.92 0.01
other activities to and nonresponse bias regarding the measurement items.
develop
knowledge in your
company?
4. Results
INT My company has a 0.50 0.05 0.74 0.72
high frequency of 4.1. Cluster analysis findings
interaction with
suppliers and
The k-means cluster method was adopted to identify the number of
partners
My company 0.87 0.02 0.50 clusters. This method is based on the definition of central cluster ele­
fosters the ments called centroids (Žalik, 2008; Lehmann, 1985), which are used to
collaborative generate the Euclidean similarity measure between the clusters. The
planning of
following process was used to determine the final number of clusters,
resources and
n n
processes with considering that the number of clusters is limited between 30 and 60 ,
other suppliers and where n is the sample size (Lehmann, 1985). K-means methods were
other partners applied to different values of k (k = 3, k = 4, k = 5, k = 6 and k = 7) to
My company has a 0.70 0.03
identify the number of clusters that allowed for more significant dif­
close relationship
with suppliers and ferentiation with a relevant and coherent interpretation of the com­
other partners panies analyzed. All cases obtained by the preestablished k-groups were
divided, and the best partition of the n cases was that which optimized
the chosen criterion. In each of the five cluster analyses, we assessed the
Table 3 contribution of each variable to the definition of the groups (Milligan &
Correlation Matrix Cooper, 1985). Finally, we compared the number of interactions needed
to stabilize the cluster solution, that is, at the point at which new iter­
Construct KB AKT CULT STR R&D INT
ations produced little change in the centers of the groups. The method
KB 1 0.31 0.29 0.45 0.07 0.33 with k = 4 groups generated better differentiation, coherence and
AKT 1 0.97 0.96 0.03 0.97
CULT 1 0.97 − 0.04 0.97
interpretive interest. The convergence and stabilization of the method
STR 1 0.01 0.96 were achieved after the 9th iteration. With this effort, we sought to
R&D 1 − 0.06 understand the managerial interpretability of the clusters. Then,
INT 1 ANOVA and Bonferroni’s paired comparison tests of mean differences
(centroid) of each construct were used to look for significant differences
across clusters (Harrigan, 1985). The ANOVA solution with four clusters
and collected expert views on the measures as presented to improve the
had significant F values for each construct, as shown in Table 5.
scale items. Third, the reliability and validity of the constructs were
We described the clusters following a sequence from low to high
assessed. Fourth, we assured respondents of their anonymity while
scores in the constructs. The first cluster consisted of 31 KIBS buyers
participating in the research to reduce social desirability and other po­
(10.2%), primarily micro (29%) and small companies (42%) in the
tential biases. Fifth, before performing confirmatory factor analysis
processing or extraction industry sector (58%). The cluster scored low in
(CFA), we conducted Harman’s single factor test to evaluate potential
all clustering variables but the second highest in R&D activities. These
common methods variance problems. We loaded all measurement items
findings suggest that KIBS buyers in this group are relatively small in
into a single factor and assessed the goodness of fit. The results indicated
numbers of employees, emphasizing R&D activities but with a limited
a poor fit: CFI = 0.523, SRMR = 0.186, RMSEA = 0.216, p (RMSEA
knowledge base, low interaction with other companies, and low orga­
≤0.05) ≤ 0.00. Finally, we performed wave analysis to examine
nizational culture and structures to support knowledge absorption. For
nonresponse bias (Lambert & Harrington, 1990). The statistical analysis
these reasons, we named this cluster R&D-based Absorptive Capacity.
of the t-test was adopted to compare the responses of the early and late
Cluster 2 had 55 KIBS buyers (18.1%) distributed in the following
informants. The outcomes indicated no significant differences between
sizes: micro (18%), small (45%), medium (22%), and large companies
the means of the wave responses, as described before. As a result, the
(15%). Buyers in this group are mostly in the processing or extraction
procedures adopted in the research design and post-data collection
industry sector (56%), IT services (22%), and telecom (16%). These
indicated that there are no important concerns of common method bias
KIBS buyers are characterized by having the lowest scores in Knowledge

155
R. Teixeira et al. Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164

Table 5
Cluster group results.
R&D-based Absorptive Low Absorptive Fully Developed Acquisition-based F value
Capacity Capacity Absorptive Capacity Absorptive Capacity

Constructs n = 31 (10.2%) n = 55 (18.1%) n = 89 (29.3%) n = 129 (42.4%)

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Attitude toward knowledge transfer

Mean * − 2.279 (2,3,4) − 0.607 (1,3,4) 0.445 (1,2) 0.499 (1,2) 519.835
Standard error 0.091 0.055 0.044 0.028 p<
** 0.001

R&D Activities
Mean * 0.347 (2,3,4) − 0.556 (1,3) 1.389 (1,2,4) − 0.805 (1,3) 238.957
Standard error 0.207 0.096 0.054 0.039 p<
** 0.001

Organizational structure for knowledge absorption

Mean * − 1.789 (2,3,4) − 0.569 (1,3,4) 0.355 (1,2) 0.428 (1,2) 429.208
Standard error 0.097 0.046 0.038 0.023 p<
** 0.001

Knowledge
Base
Mean * − 0.341 (3,4) − 0.404 (3,4) 0.207 (1,2) 0.111 (1,2) 14.43
Standard error 0.162 0.091 0.06 0.053 p<
** 0.001

Organizational culture for knowledge absorption

Mean * − 1.984 (2,3,4) − 0.581 (1,3,4) 0.324 (1,2,4) 0.501 (1,2,3) 439.844
Standard error 0.091 0.057 0.0402 0.026 p<
** 0.001

Interaction with other organizations

Mean * − 1.275 (2,3,4) − 0.359 (1,3,4) 0.199 (1,2,4) 0.322 (1,2,3) 417.101
Standard error 0.061 0.039 0.026 0.0169 p<
** 0.001

Notes: * Represents the mean score of each cluster for its respective construct. ** The standard error of the estimated mean for each group. The numbers in parentheses
indicate the numbers of the groups from which this group was significantly different (p < 0.05), as noted in Bonferroni’s paired comparison procedure. Values in bold
indicate the highest group centroid for the construct. Values within a box show the lowest group centroid for the construct. The observed F statistics were derived from
ANOVA, and the p values are associated with each of the observed F statistics.

base and among the lowest in all other variables. These findings suggest clusters’ underlying dimensions and describe the cluster solution in a
that these buyers have low absorptive capacity compared to buyers of factorial space, obtaining a visual description of the partition and
other groups, resulting in their name Low Absorptive Capacity. additional evidence of the cluster solution. The analysis generated three
Cluster 3 had 89 buyers (29%) primarily small (46%) and medium- discriminant functions (number of groups minus 1). The first canonical
size (35%) companies. Most of these buyers are in the processing or function had an eigenvalue equal to 5.891 and explained 70.3% of the
extraction sector (65%), followed by IT services (18%). KIBS buyers in variance in the discriminate analysis, while the second had an eigen­
this cluster had the highest scores in R&D activities and Knowledge base value equal to 2.411 and explained 28.8%. Finally, the third canonical
and high scores in all other variables; some were not significantly function had an eigenvalue of 0.082 and explained 1.0% of the variance.
different from the highest scores. These findings suggest that these Although the last function does not explain much of the variance, Wilks’
buyers’ absorptive capacity potential is very developed, leading to their lambda test of functions indicated that all three functions are significant
name Fully Developed Absorptive Capacity. in distinguishing the groups (Wilks’ lambda function 1 through 3: 0.039,
Finally, KIBS buyers in Cluster 4 had the highest scores in the orga­ p < 0.01; Wilks’ lambda function 2 through 3: 0.217, p < 0.01; and
nizational culture for knowledge absorption and interaction with other or­ function 3: 0.924, p < 0.01).
ganizations. They also had high scores on almost all other variables
except R&D activities, with the lowest score among all clusters. These
findings suggest that KIBS buyers in this group derive their potential to Table 6
Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients.
absorb knowledge from interactions with third parties and their orga­
nizational culture, structures, and attitudes to promote knowledge flows Constructs Function Function Function
1 2 3
within the organization. Nevertheless, they rely little on their R&D ac­
tivities. For these reasons, we named this cluster Acquisition-based Attitude toward external knowledge 0.080 0.002 1.034
Absorptive Capacity. This cluster is the largest, with 129 buyers (42.4%), transfer
R&D activities − 0.821 0.310 0.393
mostly small (60%) and medium-sized (27%) companies. Organizational structure for knowledge 1.330 − 0.246 − 1.39
absorption
Knowledge base 0.495 − 0.215 2.034
4.2. Discriminant analysis Organizational culture for knowledge − 0.027 0.349 − 1.067
absorption
Interaction with other organizations − 0.374 0.993 0.107
We conducted a canonical discriminant analysis to reveal the

156
R. Teixeira et al.
Table 6 shows the canonical functions and their respective stan­
dardized canonical discriminant function coefficients. Function 1 sug­
gests a distinction based on the organizational structure for knowledge
absorption, knowledge base, and R&D activities, while function 2 reflects
the company’s interaction with other organizations, organizational culture
for knowledge absorption, and R&D activities. Function 3 reflects a com­
pany’s knowledge base, attitude toward external knowledge transfer and
R&D activities.
Fig. 1 below illustrates the first two canonical functions, which ac­
count for 99.1% of the variance in the discriminate analysis and the
distribution of clusters. This figure shows the clusters distributed along
the two functions, helping to demonstrate the distinction between them.
Fig. 1 provides a visual description of the four-cluster solution. The
interpretation of the clusters in the context of these two functions cor­
roborates the interpretation of the clusters in Table 4. For example,
Cluster 1 centroid has the lowest score on function 1 (organizational
structure for knowledge absorption and Knowledge base) but the second
highest on function 2 (R&D activities). These scores match the Cluster 1
scores in Table 3: low scores on organizational structure for knowledge
absorption and knowledge base and higher scores on R&D activities. The
same pattern follows for the other clusters. The classification results
show that 98.7% of companies were correctly classified.
4.3. Cluster solution and KIBS importance for buyers
We employed an ordinary least square regression analysis to assess
the relationships between cluster groups and the importance of KIBS for
buyers’ product and process development to answer our second research
question. Table 7 shows the number of responses for each KIBS ac­
cording to its importance.
We ran a multiple ordinary least square regression analysis with
robust standard errors using dummy variables as independent variables
to represent the cluster groups, industry sectors, and company sizes. The
baseline groups are Cluster 1, the engineering and architectural industry
sector and large companies (more than 500 employees). Table 8 shows
the ordinary least square regression results for the five KIBS categories.
The results show that the importance attributed to management
consulting is not significantly different among groups, and only the
members of Cluster 3, which displays a fully developed potential to
absorb knowledge, see architecture and engineering services as
Fig. 1. Classification of KIBS buyers in discriminant functions 1 and 2.
157
Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164
important to their product and process development. Fig. 2a shows the
predictive margins with 95% confidence intervals for management
consulting services, indicating the lack of differentiation between
clusters.
For architecture and engineering services (Fig. 2b), buyers in Cluster
3 (b = 0.295, p = 0.072) were significantly different from buyers in
Cluster 1, attributing 0.295 points more, on average, to the scale of
importance from 1 to 5. We performed additional F tests to set other
clusters as a baseline group and inspect the mean difference in different
pairs of clusters. Examining the mean difference in other pairs of clus­
ters, we found that buyers in Cluster 3 (F test = 2.80, p = 0.095) were
slightly but still significantly different from buyers in Cluster 2, attrib­
uting 0.268 points of more importance, on average, to these services
than buyers in Cluster 2.
For product/prototype testing and technical services, Cluster 3 (b =
0.724, p < 0.001) and Cluster 4 (b = 0.609, p = 0.001) are significantly
different from Cluster 1. On average, KIBS buyers in Clusters 3 and 4
attributed 0.724 and 0.609 higher importance to these services,
respectively, than the buyers in Cluster 1. Additional tests showed that
Clusters 3 (F test = 12.70, p < 0.001) and 4 (F test = 9.55, p = 0.002)
were significantly different from Cluster 2. On average, buyers in Clus­
ters 3 and 4 attributed 0.645 and 0.531 more points to the importance
scale than buyers in Cluster 2. Fig. 3a shows the predictive margins with
95% confidence intervals for architectural and engineering services.
Fig. 3b shows that, for R&D for engineering and natural sciences
services, Cluster 3 (b = 0.449, p = 0.034) and Cluster 4 (b = 0.346, p =
0.097) are significantly different from Cluster 1. On average, buyers in
Clusters 3 and 4 attributed 0.367 and 0.363 higher importance,
respectively, than buyers in Cluster 1. We also found that Clusters 3 (F
test = 9.99, p = 0.002) and 4 (F test = 7.44, p = 0.007) significantly
differed from Cluster 2. On average, buyers in Clusters 3 and 4 attributed
0.549 and 0.446 points more to the impact scale than buyers in Cluster
2.
Finally, for R&D for social sciences services, Cluster 3 (b = 0.968, p
< 0.001) and Cluster 4 (b = 1.042, p < 0.001) are significantly different
from Cluster 1. On average, buyers in Clusters 3 and 4 attributed
(Fig. 3c) 0.968 and 1.042 points more on the importance scale,
respectively. We found that buyers in Clusters 3 (F test = 17.17, p <
0.001) and 4 (F test = 22.79, p- < 0.001) were significantly different
from buyers in Cluster 2. On average, buyers in Clusters 3 and 4
R. Teixeira et al. Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164

Table 7
Importance of different KIBS to buyers’ product and process development.
KIBS importance

1 2 3 4 5
KIBS Not important Low importance Moderate Important Very important
Important

Management consulting 145 47 100 8 4

Architecture and construction engineering services 31 36 197 24 16
Product/prototype testing and technical services 26 72 81 125
R&D for engineering and natural sciences 36 85 100 83
R&D for social sciences 26 72 81 125

Table 8
Ordinary least square regression analysis results.
Industry Management Architecture & Product/proto-type testing and R&D for engineering and natural R&D for social
consulting engineering technical services sciences sciences

IT services − 0.34 (0.53) − 0.08 (0.42) − 0.24 (0.39) 0.40 (0.51) 0.54 (0.39)
Energy − 0.69 (0.63) − 0.15 (1.17) − 0.27 (1.16) − 0.10 (0.64) 1.27***(0.38)
Processing or extraction 0.01 (0.54) − 0.09 (0.42) 0.29 (0.40) 0.62 (0.52) 0.69*(0.39)
industry
R&D − 0.89 (0.61) − 0.19 (0.69) − 0.73 (0.57) − 0.67 (0.65) − 0.45 (0.49)
Telecommunication − 0.21 (0.54) − 0.08 (0.43) 0.17 (0.41) 0.53 (0.52) 0.55 (0.39)
Technical testing and 0.37 (063) 0.27 (0.45) 0.01 (0.42) 0.42 (0.71) 0.10 (0.42)
analysis

Size
Micro (0–19 employees) − 0.53*(0.29) 0.43 (0.26) − 0.46 (0.29) − 0.47 (0.29) − 0.12 (0.26)
Small (20–99 employees) − 0.31 (0.27) 0.33 (0.23) − 0.41 (0.26) − 0.39 (0.27) − 0.17 (0.24)
Medium (100–499 0.01 (0.26) 0.32 (0.22) − 0.12 (0.25) − 0.11 (0.27) 0.12 (0.23)
employees)

Cluster
2 0.178 (0.22) 0.03 (0.18) 0.08 (0.22) − 0.10 (0.23) 0.24 (0.24)
3 0.204 (0.21) 0.30*(0.16) 0.72***(0.20) 0.45**(0.21) 0.97***(0.20)
4 0.034 (0.20) 0.20 (0.15) 0.61***(0.21) 0.35*(0.21) 1.04***(0.21)

Constant 2.15 (0.54) 2.45 (0.46) 3.17 (0.43) 3.26 (0.54) 2.69 (0.42)
R-squared 0.048 0.032 0.100 0.081 0.211
F value 1.75 1.06 3.64 2.71 4.15

Note: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1. Std. errors within parenthesis.

Fig. 2. Predictive margins with 95% confidence intervals for the importance of a) management consulting and b) architecture and engineering.
Note: Scale of KIBS importance from 1 to 5 points.

attributed 0.724 and 0.798 points more to the importance scale than differences in the importance attributed to the different KIBS purchased
buyers in Cluster 2. across industries and firm sizes, indicating no major influence of buyer
The multiple ordinary least square regression did not reveal major size and industry on our results. There were only two exceptions. First,

158
R. Teixeira et al.
Fig. 3. Predictive margins with 95% confidence intervals for the importance of a) product/prototype testing, technical services, and b) R&D for engineering, natural
and c) social sciences.
Note: Scale of importance from 1 to 5 points.
companies with 19 or fewer employees attributed less importance to
management consultancy services (b = − 0.53, p = 0.069) than large
companies (the baseline group). Second, companies in the energy (b =
1.27, p = 0.001) and processing and extraction (b = 0.69, p = 0.076)
sectors attributed more importance to R&D for social sciences than firms
in the engineering and architecture industries (the baseline group).
Overall, these analyses show that KIBS buyers with a Fully Developed
Absorptive Capacity potential (Cluster 3) attribute significant importance
to all KIBS services analyzed except for management consulting. Buyers
with Acquisition-based Absorptive Capacity (Cluster 4) also attribute high
importance to product/prototype testing and technical services and
R&D services related to engineering, natural sciences and social sci­
ences. Nevertheless, they care less about management consultancy, ar­
chitecture, and construction engineering. Finally, our data show that
buyers with Low Absorptive Capacity potential (Cluster 2) and R&D-based
Absorptive Capacity attribute little importance to all types of KIBS
purchased.
5. Discussion
This study aimed to classify KIBS buyers based on their absorptive
knowledge capacity potential. Our motivation relied on buyers varying
in their knowledge paths and their ability to acquire, assimilate, transfer
159
Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164
and apply knowledge to improve business performance. This study can
be considered a pioneering study in the KIBS literature focusing on
buyers’ knowledge profiles. The absorptive capacity framework was
used to derive the constructs to characterise the KIBS buyers. This
theoretical approach is aligned with KIBS characteristics because these
services are knowledge intensive. KIBS delivery and value cocreation
depend on buyers’ ability to absorb the knowledge provided by the
supplier.
We found four groups of buyers with different characteristics of
knowledge absorption capacity. The group named R&D-based Absorptive
Capacity is characterized by low external interaction and a lack of in­
ternal supportive elements for knowledge absorption but a high level of
R&D activities. The Low Absorptive Capacity group is characterized by
small companies that do not have developed absorptive capacity struc­
tures because they might not require external knowledge to run opera­
tions or are in the early stages of development. The Acquisition-based
Absorptive Capacity group is formed by buyers with an organizational
structure, culture, and attitude that support sharing knowledge obtained
from interacting with external parties. The Fully Developed Absorptive
Capacity group has the greatest ability to absorb knowledge, being ori­
ented toward internal knowledge development activities and some level
of external interaction with other companies.
The results indicated that the KIBS buyer clusters are significantly
R. Teixeira et al.
related to the importance of KIBS after controlling for buyer size and
industry. One finding is that all buyers of KIBS believe that management
consulting, architecture, and construction engineering services
contribute little to their product and process development. One reason
might be the low intensity of knowledge transfer to buyers in these types
of services since these services are profession-based KIBS. As such, they
do not develop new knowledge and technologies but readapt profession-
based rules and knowledge to customers’ contexts and needs (Miles,
2005). In other words, the outcomes of these services are more difficult
to apply for new product development.
Conversely, product/prototype testing and technical services and
R&D for engineering and the natural and social sciences are t-KIBS that
are developers of knowledge (Miles, 2005). Their outcomes might be
transferred and absorbed internally by buyers and turned into new
products, which helps to explain why groups with higher levels of
knowledge absorptive capacity (Fully developed Absorptive Capacity and
Acquisition-based Absorptive Capacity) attribute highest importance to
these services. They are better equipped to benefit from the knowledge
created and shared with them since they have supporting conditions to
internally absorb and transform knowledge into innovation. These
findings answer the second research question that examined the extent
to which the knowledge absorption profile influences the importance
that buyers of KIBS attribute to different KIBS. These findings have both
theoretical and practical implications.
5.1. Research implications
Until now, the literature has mainly focused on the levels of buyers’
knowledge in the delivery process of knowledge-intensive services (Auh
et al., 2007; Azzari et al., 2021; Bell & Eisingerich, 2007; Eichentopf
et al., 2011; Santos & Spring, 2015; Silva & Santos, 2021). We add to this
literature by showing that companies that buy KIBS have very different
knowledge profiles. We observed four different types in our data. In this
way, we offer a more systemic way to comprehend the dynamic
involving the knowledge of KIBS buyers, addressing the call of Azzari
et al. (2021) regarding the need for a more contextualized view of
buyers’ knowledge.
While we know that buyers with higher knowledge absorption ca­
pacity might facilitate the delivery process when compared to a buyer
with lower levels (Siahtiri et al., 2020; Mustak, 2019; Bell & Eisingerich,
2007; Bell et al., 2005; Dellande, Gilly, & Graham, 2004), our taxonomy
raises questions about whether KIBS buyers with similar knowledge
levels but different knowledge absorption profiles will participate
similarly. Moreover, the same KIBS service will generate different values
depending on the buyer’s means of absorbing knowledge. Because KIBS
are services cocreated in the interaction between the buyer and supplier,
buyers with varying profiles of knowledge absorption capacity will
obtain different benefits from these services.
As such, the value of examining more complex buyer profiles rather
than simply assessing knowledge or absorptive capacity levels lies in
understanding that different profiles can lead to different participation
means and shape the value attributed to KIBS. For instance, buyers that
derive their ability to absorb knowledge mainly from R&D activities can
have similar absorptive capacity levels to buyers with acquisition-based
absorptive capacity. However, the former does not see the importance of
R&D-related KIBS and might have difficulty interacting with service
providers when they buy these services. The latter, in turn, value R&D-
related KIBS and might more easily interact with service providers.
Future research must explore how differences in buyers’ knowledge
absorption profiles influence buyers’ participation and value capture in
KIBS delivery processes.
Moreover, the literature on KIBS purchasing has shown that buyers’
risk propensity (Mitchell, 1999), uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-
femininity (Pemer, Sieweke, et al., 2014; Pemer, Werr, & Bianchi,
2014), “personal chemistry” and trust and commitment to the supplier
(Day & Barksdale, 2003; Fitzsimmons et al., 1998; Lian & Laing, 2007)
160
Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164
play important roles when guiding buyers in decision-making. We
observed that buyers attributing more importance to KIBS are those with
elements to acquire, absorb, assimilate and apply the knowledge since
they can exploit these services better. Therefore, we uncovered an
additional characteristic that must be considered. Future research on the
extent to which buyers’ absorptive capacity profiles shape their pur­
chasing process and decisions is necessary to assess the relevance of
these capacities. This finding also provides novel insights into how
contextual differences in buyer-supplier relationships regarding KIBS
generate different outcomes, addressing recent calls for research (Mus­
tak, 2019; Nordenflycht, 2010; Saemundsson & Candi, 2017; Siahtiri
et al., 2020).
5.2. Practical implications
Our taxonomy of KIBS buyers provides a classification to help
distinguish buyers who can contribute more to service delivery and
cocreation. As such, this taxonomy could aid in the strategy and design
of KIBS because the service elements used to design KIBS must be
different depending on the group of buyers. In other words, to maximize
KIBS performance, the strategy and design elements must be aligned
with the type of buyer to whom the supplier is selling.
Using the same supporting elements in a given KIBS for different
types of buyers might result in less-than-optimal performance. These
insights also apply to the process of educating buyers to perform their
roles better and improve their service performance (Santos & Spring,
2015; Silva & Santos, 2021). Companies selling KIBS could develop
managerial artifacts (e.g., standards-based assessments, checklists,
questionnaires) to obtain data from their buyers to measure and classify
them based on the variables proposed in this study. Different managers
within the same supplier company could classify buyers to increase the
validity and reliability of this process. The company could devise a
strategy to approach these different buyer groups based on these mea­
sures. For example, the company could provide knowledge sources (e.g.,
seminars, meetings, training, etc.) to buyers with a greater ability to
acquire and absorb knowledge, or the company could devise a team of
experts for those buyers more focused on R&D activities. The company
could even create R&D supporting services for those companies not
focusing on R&D activities but open to acquiring knowledge. The
distinct profiles provoke a variety of strategic and tactical decisions
designed to maximize the benefits for the buying company. At the same
time, the selling company could optimize its resources by matching
them to the buyers that can obtain more benefits from them. Addition­
ally, the selling company could set more realistic goals regarding the
potential market available. For example, after mapping the market
based on buyers’ knowledge absorption characteristics, the selling
company could quantify the number of buyers classified in each group
and better estimate the potential sales for them.
5.3. Limitations and future research
This research also has limitations that must be acknowledged. The
first limitation is related to the subjectivity of the themes of absorptive
capacity and interorganizational interactions and the associated diffi­
culty in observing these constructs. Another limitation lies in the limited
body of empirical literature specifically examining the buyer side of
companies acquiring intensive technological services based on their
ability to absorb knowledge and interact with suppliers. Third, consid­
ering that this research area is still in its early stages of development and
that more investigation is needed to reach a satisfactory consensus level,
it is not possible to draw conclusions about the generalizability of the
article’s findings for other contexts. Additionally, some constructs were
adjusted from the literature to fit the absorptive capacity nature of KIBS
buyers, such as organizational structure for knowledge absorption and
organizational culture for knowledge absorption. Because of that and the
need to adapt these constructs to an emerging economy context, they
R. Teixeira et al. Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164

present limitations in their ability to capture their full meaning. Finally,
the stability of the cluster solution is limited because of the process
variability associated with the cluster analysis that yields various
possible solutions. For example, a different cluster solution could be
found if a variable is included or excluded or certain parameters or
techniques are modified in the cluster analysis process.
Our findings allow us to mention interesting future research di­
rections needed to advance the knowledge in the field. Hence, we pro­
pose a few promising avenues for future research that would interest
scholars, practitioners and policy-makers. First, more complex KIBS
buyer profiles should be investigated, as described earlier. Our attempt
to provide such a profile based on the absorptive capacity of buyers is
the first step. However, KIBS buyers have other dimensions not captured
by our study, and future research could explore these dimensions to
enrich what is known about these buyers. Second, additional empirical
tests focusing on the supply side of KIBS are needed to examine the re­
sults achieved in our study. Third, qualitative studies could deepen the
understanding of the constructs proposed in this study to generate new
insights. In this regard, future studies might examine, for example,
cause-effect relationships between the investigated groups concerning
the related constructs in each cluster. Fourth, further work could be
developed to explore other categories of services to refine the measures,
scales and diversity of respondents. Fifth, new studies might examine
objective performance measures (e.g., revenue, profitability, market
share) to help understand the differences in performance of the groups
concerning organizational antecedents. Sixth, although our findings
indicate that our results hold across industries and buyer sizes, we did
observe that the importance attributed to R&D associated with social
sciences varies in some industries (in our cases, energy, processing, and
extraction). This finding is interesting, and qualitative studies could
explore why these buyers value this type of KIBS more and the extent to
which the need for these services has implications for the knowledge
they need to deal with the purchase of these services. Finally, research is
required to explore how differences in buyers’ knowledge absorption
profiles can influence companies’ buyers to participate in KIBS and their
value capture in KIBS delivery processes.
6. Conclusion
This study aimed to propose an empirical taxonomy to classify
companies buying KIBS considering their ability to absorb knowledge
and interact in business with KIBS suppliers. Findings obtained from a
grounded empirical survey contribute to bridging theory and practice on
the buyer side of KIBS. First, the findings offer novel insights into the
KIBS literature by revealing the different nuances of companies’ buyers
of KIBS. The study deepens our understanding of the behavior of buying
companies according to the relevance of organizational antecedents (i.
e., attitude toward knowledge transfer, R&D activities, knowledge base,
interaction with other organizations, and organizational structure for
knowledge absorption and organizational culture for knowledge absorption)
in four representative groups of absorptive capacity (i.e., R&D-based
Absorptive Capacity, Low Absorptive Capacity, Acquisition-based Absorptive
Capacity, Fully Developed Absorptive Capacity).
Second, the research was able to measure, to some extent, the
knowledge absorptive characteristics of KIBS buyers, contributing to
further understanding of their resources and roles in the process of
service delivery and value cocreation, adding to the literature. Third, the
knowledge absorptive capacity theoretical lens provided a new
perspective on KIBS buyers, showing more abstract characteristics of
these buyers and revealing contextual differences that might generate
different outcomes. Fourth, the study showed how different buyer
groups valued KIBS differently, revealing a market segmentation based
on KIBS buyers’ profiles. Finally, this study is among the first to respond
to the calls for empirical research examining how contingency aspects in
buyer-supplier relationships in KIBS enable different organizational re­
sults and add value to this complex interaction.
Declarations of interest
There are no personal or financial conflicts of interest associated with
this study.
Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Appendix A. Constructs, measurement items, and supporting literature

Construct Measurement Items Supporting Literature for Scale Development

Knowledge base (KB) My company’s knowledge base is superior to those of our suppliers and partners Miles (2005); Vega-Jurado et al. (2008);
My company’s knowledge base is different from those of our suppliers and partners Murovec and Prodan (2009)
My company has a technical knowledge level that allows it to interact easily with
other companies
My company hires employees with high educational levels and technical knowledge*
Attitude toward external knowledge My company tries to quickly assess the usefulness of external knowledge and relate it Ferreras-Méndez et al. (2016);
transfer (AKT) to its operations Smith et al. (2005); Murovec and Prodan (2009)
My company critically evaluates the value of external knowledge to its operations
My company tries to determine how external knowledge can be used in its R&D
activities
My company frequently evaluates how new technologies can be conciliated with new
ideas for products and processes**
My company is open to learning new technologies from interactions with other
companies**
Organizational culture for knowledge My company values employees who are proactive in adopting innovative ideas and Baird et al. (2011)
absorption (CUL) experimenting
My company values cooperation in the work environment to promote innovation
My company is open to innovation
My company quickly takes advantage of opportunities and new ideas to improve
products and processes
My company faces the risks associated with innovative ideas**
In my company, the actions of the employees are not constrained by many rules*
Organizational structure for knowledge My company is designed to help employees to meet and discuss new ideas Jansen et al. (2005); Seleim and Khalil (2011)
absorption (STR) The communication in my company is simple and equally spread across all levels
(continued on next page)

161
R. Teixeira et al. Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164

(continued )
Construct Measurement Items Supporting Literature for Scale Development

My company has hierarchical levels that help to systematize communication and

enable information flows in the organization
My company has a formal organizational structure that facilitates execution of its
plan**
My company promotes job rotation regularly to distribute employees’ know-how*
My company has an organizational structure that facilitates participation in decision-
making*
R&D activities (R&D) How important are R&D activities for your company? Murovec and Prodan (2009); Vega-Jurado et al.
How important is developing R&D knowledge? (2008)
How important is acquiring external knowledge for your company?
How important is training your employees involved in R&D activities?
How important are other activities to develop knowledge in your company?
Interaction with other organizations My company has a close relationship with suppliers and other partners Zacharia et al. (2011)
(INT) My company has a high frequency of interaction with suppliers and partners
My company fosters the collaborative planning of resources and processes with other
suppliers and other partners
My company considers it important to share information with suppliers and other
partners*
My company has mechanisms to solve problems and make joint decisions with
suppliers and other partners *
Notes: *deleted after interviews with experts; **deleted in the CFA.

References technology, operations, and supply chain management. IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management, 58(3), 578–588.
Daghfous, A. (2004). Absorptive capacity and the implementation of knowledge-
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2012). Value co-creation in knowledge intensive
intensive best practices. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69(2), 1–21.
business services: A dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process.
Dameri, R. P., & Demartini, P. (2020). Knowledge transfer and translation in cultural
Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 15–26.
ecosystems. Management Decision, 58(9), 1885–1907.
Ali, M., Ali, I., Al-Maimani, K. A., & Park, K. (2018). The effect of organisational structure
D’Antone, S., & Santos, J. B. (2016). When purchasing professional services supports
on absorptive capacity in single and dual learning modes. Journal of Innovation &
innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 58, 172–186.
Knowledge, 3(3), 108–114.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in
Argote, L. (2012). Organisational learning research: Past, present and future. Development
partner cooperation in alliances. AMR, 23, 491–512.
and Learning in Organisations, 26(2), 439–446.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organisations manage what
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in
they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
organisations: Learning from the experience of others. Organizational Behavior and
Day, E., & Barksdale, H. (2003). Selecting a professional service provider from the short
Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1–8.
list. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18(6–7), 564–579.
Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer loyalty
Dellande, S., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (2004). Gaining compliance and losing weight:
in financial services. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 359–370.
The role of the service provider in health care services. Journal of Marketing, 68(3),
Azzari, V., Mainardes, E. W., Beiruth, A. X., & da Costa, F. M. (2021). The dimensions of
78–91.
accounting service quality. SN Business & Economics, 1(8), 105.
Desyllas, P., Miozzo, M., Lee, H. F., & Miles, I. (2018). Capturing value from innovation
Bagozzi, R. P., & Philips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories:
in knowledge-intensive business service firms: The role of competitive strategy.
A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459–489.
British Journal of Management, 29, 769–795.
Baird, K., Jia, H., & K. and Reeve, R.. (2011). The relationships between organizational
Doloreux, D., Shearmur, R., & Guillaume, R. (2015). Collaboration, transferable and non-
culture, total quality management practices and operational performance.
transferable knowledge, and innovation: A study of a cool climate wine industry
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(7), 789–814.
(Canada). Growth and Change, 46(1), 16–37.
Becheikh, N., Landry, R., & Amara, N. (2006). Lessons from innovation empirical studies
Dong, B., Sivakumar, K., Evans, K., & Shaoming, Z. (2015). Effect of customer
in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003.
participation on service outcomes: The moderating role of participation readiness.
Technovation, 26(5), 644–664.
Journal of Service Research, 18(2), 160–176.
Bell, S. J., Auh, S., & Smalley, K. (2005). Customer relationship dynamics: Service quality
Easterby-Smith, M., Graça, M., Antonacopoulou, E., & Ferdinand, J. (2008). Absorptive
and customer loyalty in the context of varying levels of customer expertise and
capacity: A process perspective. Management Learning, 39(5), 483–501.
switching costs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 169.
Eichentopf, T., Kleinaltenkamp, M., & van Stiphout, J. (2011). Modelling customer
Bell, S. J., & Eisingerich, A. B. (2007). The paradox of customer education: Customer
process activities in interactive value creation. Journal of Service Management, 22(5),
expertise and loyalty in the financial services industry. European Journal of
650–663.
Marketing, 41(5/6), 466–486.
Eisingerich, A. B., Auh, S., & Merlo, O. (2014). Acta non verba? The role of customer
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in
participation and word of mouth in the relationship between service firms’ customer
service-delivery. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 38–406.
satisfaction and sales performance. Journal of Service Research, 17(1), 40–53.
Bettencourt, L. A., Ostrom, A. L., Brown, S. W., & Roundtree, R. I. (2002). Client co-
Eisingerich, A. B., & Bell, S. (2007). Maintaining customer relationships in high credence
production in knowledge-intensive business services. California Management Review,
services. Journal of Services Marketing, 21(4), 253–262.
44(4), 100–128.
Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (1986). Evaluating the research on strategy content.
Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S., & Danese, P. (2015). Successful lean implementation:
Journal of Management, 12(2), 167–183.
Organisational culture and soft lean practices. International Journal of Production
Ferreras-Méndez, J. L., Fernández-Mesa, A., & Alegre, J. (2016). The relationship
Economics, 160, 182–201.
between knowledge search strategies and absorptive capacity: A deeper look.
Burton, R. M., & Obel, B. (1995). Mathematical contingency modelling for organisational
Technovation, 54, 48–61.
design: Taking stock. In Design models for hierarchical organisations (pp. 3–34).
Fitzsimmons, J. A., Noh, J., & Thies, E. (1998). Purchasing business services. Journal of
Boston, MA: Springer.
Business & Industrial Marketing, 13(4/5), 370–380.
Capaldo, A. (2007). Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network
Forza, C. (2002). Survey research in operations management: A process-based
as a distinctive relational capability. Strat. Mgmt. J., 28, 585–608. https://doi.org/
perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2),
10.1002/smj.621
152–194.
Chatman, J. A., et al. (2014). Parsing organisational culture: How the norm for
Hair, J. F., et al. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
adaptability influences the relationship between culture consensus and financial
Prentice Hall.
performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(6),
Harper, C. (2015). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Routledge.
785–808.
Harrigan, K. R. (1985). An application of clustering for strategic group analysis. Strategic
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R &
Management, 10, 55–73.
D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.
Hertog, P. D. (2000). Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4), 491.
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organisational culture, innovation, and performance:
Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., Dunn, K. S., & Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Addressing
A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609–1621.
common method variance: Guidelines for survey research on information

162
R. Teixeira et al.
Hsieh, Y.-C., & Hiang, S.-T. (2004). A study of the impacts of service quality on
relationship quality in search-experience-credence services. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 15(1), 43–58.
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer.
Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.
Islam, M. Z., Jasimuddin, S. M., & Hasan, I. (2015). Organisational culture, structure,
technology infrastructure and knowledge sharing: Empirical evidence from MNCs
based in Malaysia. Vine, 45(1), 67–88.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential
and realised absorptive capacity: How do organisational antecedents matter?
Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.
Jiebing, G., Bin, W., & Yongjiang, S. (2013). Customer knowledge management and IT-
enabled business model innovation: A conceptual framework and a case study from
China. European Management Journal, 31(4), 359–372.
Ketchen, D. J., & Shook, C. L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic
management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17(6),
441–458.
Ketchen, D. J., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, C. C. (1993). Organisational configurations and
performance: A comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of Management
Journal, 36(6), 1278–1313.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
Lambert, D. M., & Harrington, T. C. (1990). Measuring nonresponse bias in customer
service mail surveys. Journal of Business Logistics, 11(2), 5–25.
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A
critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31
(4), 833–863.
Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational
learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461–477.
Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., & Lyles, M. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity, learning, and
performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12),
1139–1161.
Lau, A. K., & Lo, W. (2015). Regional innovation system, absorptive capacity and
innovation performance: An empirical study. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 92, 99–114.
Lee, J. C., Chen, C. Y., & Shiue, Y. C. (2017). The moderating effects of organisational
culture on the relationship between absorptive capacity and software process
improvement success. Information Technology & People, 30(1), 47–70.
Lehmann, D. R. (1985). Market research and analysis (2nd ed.). R.D. Irwin, 812 p.
Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. (2011). Microfoundations of internal and external
absorptive capacity routines. Organization Science, 22(1), 81–98.
Lian, P. C. S., & Laing, A. W. (2007). Relationships in the purchasing of business to
business professional services: The role of personal relationships. Industrial Marketing
Management, 36(6), 709–718.
Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Vahter, P. (2014). Dynamic complementarities in innovation
strategies. Research Policy, 43(10), 1774–1784.
Martin, X., & Salomon, R. (2003). Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for
the theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies,
34(4), 356–373.
Menor, L. J., Roth, A. V., & Mason, C. H. (2001). Agility in retail banking: A numerical
taxonomy of strategic service groups. Manufacturing & Service Operations
Management, 3(4), 273–292.
Miles, I. (2005). Knowledge-intensive business services: Prospects and policies. Foresight,
7(6), 39–63.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1977). Strategy-making in context: Ten empirical archetypes.
Journal of Management Studies, 14(3), 253–280.
Miller, J. G., & Roth, A. V. (1994). A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies. Management
Science, 40(3), 285–304.
Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining
the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50(2), 159–179.
Mitchell, V. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. European
Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), 163–195.
Monteiro, F., & Birkinshaw, J. (2017). The external knowledge sourcing process in
multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 342–362.
Muller, E., & Doloreux, D. (2009). What we should know about knowledge-intensive
business services. Technology in Society, 31(1), 64–72.
Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation:
The role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 30(9),
1501–1516.
Murovec, N., & Prodan, I. (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on
innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation,
29(12), 859–872.
Mustak, M. (2019). Customer participation in knowledge intensive business services:
Perceived value outcomes from a dyadic perspective. Industrial Marketing
Management, 78, 76–87.
Naqshbandi, M. M., & Kamel, Y. (2017). Intervening role of realised absorptive capacity
in organisational culture–open innovation relationship: Evidence from an emerging
market. Journal of General Management, 42(3), 5–20.
Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2016). Studying the links
between organizational culture, innovation, and performance in Spanish companies.
Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 48(1), 30–41.
Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What is a professional service firm? Towards a theory and
taxonomy of knowledge intensive firms. Academy of Management Review, 35(1),
155–174.
163
Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164
O’Reiley, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational
culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. The
Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516.
Pemer, F., Sieweke, J., Werr, A., Birkner, S., & Mohe, M. (2014). The cultural
embeddedness of professional service purchasing: A comparative study of German
and Swedish companies. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 20(4),
273–285.
Pemer, F., Werr, A., & Bianchi, M. (2014). Purchasing professional services: A transaction
cost view of the antecedents and consequences of purchasing formalisation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 43(5), 840–849.
Pérez-Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B. L., Datta, D. K., & Rasheed, A. A. (2008). Effectiveness and
efficiency of cross-border knowledge transfer: An empirical examination. Journal of
Management Studies, 45, 714–744.
Phillips, L. W. (1981). Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: A
methodological note on organisational analysis in marketing. Journal of Marketing
Research, 395–415.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in
social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects
of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
Roberts, N., Galluch, P. S., Dinger, M., & Grover, V. (2012). Absorptive capacity and
information systems research: Review, synthesis, and directions for future research.
MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 625–648.
Rodriguez, M., Doloreux, D., & Shearmur, R. (2017). Variety in external knowledge
sourcing and innovation novelty: Evidence from the KIBS sector in Spain.
Technovation, 68, 35–43.
Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity.
Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–14.
Roper, S., Du, J., & Love, J. H. (2008). Modelling the innovation value chain. Research
Policy, 37(6–7), 961–977.
Rosenzweig, E. D., Laseter, T. M., & Roth, A. V. (2011). Through the service operations
strategy looking glass: Influence of industrial sector, ownership, and service offerings
on B2B e-marketplace failures. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1–2), 33–48.
Saemundsson, R., & Candi, M. (2017). Absorptive capacity and the identification of
opportunities in new technology-based firms. Technovation, 64-65, 43–49.
Santos, J. B., & Spring, M. (2015). Are knowledge intensive business services really co-
produced? Overcoming lack of customer participation in KIBS. Industrial Marketing
Management, 50, 85–96.
Seleim, A. A. S., & Khalil, O. E. M. (2011). Understanding the knowledge management-
intellectual capital relationship: A two-way analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12
(4), 586–614.
Siahtiri, V., Heirati, N., & O’Cass, A. (2020). Unlocking solution provision competence in
knowledge-intensive business service firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 87,
117–127.
Silva, S. S., & Santos, J. N. (2021). Leveraging the effectiveness of knowledge-intensive
services: The roles of customers and service providers. RAE-Revista de Administração
de Empresas, 61(2). Mar.-Apr.
Simonin, B. L. (2004). An empirical investigation of the process of knowledge transfer in
international strategic alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5),
407–427.
Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge
creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology
firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 346–357.
Strambach, S. (2008). Knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) as drivers of
multilevel knowledge dynamics. International Journal of Services, Technology and
Management, 10(2), 152–174.
Tatikonda, M. V., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2002). Managing the new service development
process: Multi-disciplinary literature synthesis and directions for future research. In
New directions in supply-chain management: Technology, strategy, and implementation
(pp. 200–233).
Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualisation.
Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774–786.
Van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W., & de Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm
absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organisational forms and
combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551–568.
Vega-Jurado, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Fernández-De-Lucio, I. (2008). Analyzing the
determinants of firm’s absorptive capacity: Beyond R&D. R&D Management, 38(4),
392–405.
Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and
taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. The Academy of Management Review, 35(1),
155–174.
Wang, L., & Li, J. (2017). The antecedents and innovation outcomes of firms’ absorptive
capacity in global buyer–supplier relationships. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
42(6), 1407–1430.
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of
research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4),
814–831.
Yam, R. C. M., et al. (2011). Analysis of sources of innovation, technological innovation
capabilities, and performance: An empirical study of Hong Kong manufacturing
industries. Research Policy, 40(3), 391–402.
R. Teixeira et al. Industrial Marketing Management 108 (2023) 149–164

Zacharia, Z. G., Nix, N. W., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). Capabilities that enhance outcomes of Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualisation,
an episodic supply chain collaboration. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.
591–603. Žalik, K. R. (2008). An efficient k’-means clustering algorithm. Pattern Recognition Letters,
29(9), 1385–1391.

164