We lack an in-depth understanding of how the different roles played by public innovation intermediaries during their engagement in collaborative projects enable them to generate ambidexterity. By adopting a sequential mixed methods research design to gather data from 122 Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs) operating in Europe, the findings suggest that public innovation intermediaries performed two different roles in collaborative projects namely, knowledge integration and network building, and these have a differential impact on the generation of distinct types of in-house innovation. The knowledge integration role is conducive to exploratory innovation, whereas the network building role contributes to exploitative innovation. Importantly, relational, and internal capabilities mediate between these roles and innovation. Yet, this mediation effect varies depending on the nature of the public innovation intermediary’s role and innovation profile. How public innovation intermediaries should utilise their key roles to generate in-house ambidexterity is crucial in leveraging the impact of public funding in this area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: