Content area
This work, based on my dissertation (Esmaili, 2024), investigates the growing knowledge gap between vocational cybersecurity education and the cybersecurity industry, driven by rapid technological advancements and the increasing demand for skilled professionals. This gap challenges educators' ability to deliver current and relevant training, limiting their capacity to prepare students for the dynamic and evolving needs of the cybersecurity field (Yusuf, 2024). Absorptive capacity (ACAP)-the ability to recognize, assimilate, and apply external knowledge-serves as the conceptual framework to address this challenge. By integrating perspectives on absorptive capacity, knowledge creation, and collaboration, this study examines mechanisms that enhance effective learning within partnerships between vocational education programs and the cybersecurity industry. This research employs an action research methodology, structured across four iterative cycles: i) establishing partnerships, ii) implementing collaborative learning environments, iii) engaging educators as active learners, and iv) developing an innovation lab for knowledge co-creation. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with educators, students, and cybersecurity professionals, and analyzed using open and axial coding to identify key themes and mechanisms. The findings show that trust-building, participatory decision-making, informal communication, and cross-functional activities are essential for strengthening educators' ability to integrate new knowledge. Educators' active involvement as learners proved crucial in bridging the knowledge gap and aligning curricula with the practical demands of the cybersecurity industry. The innovation lab emerged as a platform for knowledge cocreation, fostering meaningful collaboration between students, educators, and professionals. This research contributes to the literature by addressing gaps in ACAP implementation and emphasizing collaborative approaches to industry-education alignment. Key recommendations include promoting continuous professional development for educators, implementing co-creative learning models, and aligning cybersecurity education with industry needs to ensure future-proof training programs.
Abstract: This work, based on my dissertation (Esmaili, 2024), investigates the growing knowledge gap between vocational cybersecurity education and the cybersecurity industry, driven by rapid technological advancements and the increasing demand for skilled professionals. This gap challenges educators' ability to deliver current and relevant training, limiting their capacity to prepare students for the dynamic and evolving needs of the cybersecurity field (Yusuf, 2024). Absorptive capacity (ACAP)-the ability to recognize, assimilate, and apply external knowledge-serves as the conceptual framework to address this challenge. By integrating perspectives on absorptive capacity, knowledge creation, and collaboration, this study examines mechanisms that enhance effective learning within partnerships between vocational education programs and the cybersecurity industry. This research employs an action research methodology, structured across four iterative cycles: i) establishing partnerships, ii) implementing collaborative learning environments, iii) engaging educators as active learners, and iv) developing an innovation lab for knowledge co-creation. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with educators, students, and cybersecurity professionals, and analyzed using open and axial coding to identify key themes and mechanisms. The findings show that trust-building, participatory decision-making, informal communication, and cross-functional activities are essential for strengthening educators' ability to integrate new knowledge. Educators' active involvement as learners proved crucial in bridging the knowledge gap and aligning curricula with the practical demands of the cybersecurity industry. The innovation lab emerged as a platform for knowledge cocreation, fostering meaningful collaboration between students, educators, and professionals. This research contributes to the literature by addressing gaps in ACAP implementation and emphasizing collaborative approaches to industry-education alignment. Key recommendations include promoting continuous professional development for educators, implementing co-creative learning models, and aligning cybersecurity education with industry needs to ensure future-proof training programs.
Keywords: Cybersecurity education, Absorptive capacity, Industry-education collaboration, Knowledge development, Action research
1. Introduction
Within the cybersecurity vocational program at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS), an increasing knowledge gap between cybersecurity educators and the professional cybersecurity field, has been noted. Technological advancements occur at such a rapid pace that the industry continually demands new skills from educators. However, the heavy workload of educators often limits opportunities for ongoing professional development. As a result, educators often teach skills that are not fully aligned with current industry developments (Yusuf, 2024).
Collaboration between vocational education and the business sector is widely recognized as essential. However, in practice, such collaboration is neither automatic nor easily organized. This raises the critical question: how can collaboration between cybersecurity vocational education and the cybersecurity professional field be developed to ensure that the knowledge of teachers, students, and professionals remains current?
This work examines the issue of maintaining current knowledge in cybersecurity vocational education and the professional field through the lens of ACAP. The rapidly changing nature of cybersecurity necessitates a high degree of absorptive capacity. With the ongoing threat of cyberattacks, professionals must be equipped to apply up-to-date knowledge in practice.
2. Theoretical Framework
ACAP as introduced by Cohen and Levinthal (1990), describes the ability of an organization or individual to recognize, assimilate, and apply external knowledge. Since its introduction, the concept has evolved, encompassing perspectives such as learning, innovation, managerial cognition, knowledge-based organizational theory, dynamic capabilities, and co-evolution (Volberda, Foss & Lyles, 2010). A critical distinction in the literature is the focus on absorptive capacity at the organizational versus individual level.
Organizational absorptive capacity refers to an organization's ability to assimilate and integrate external knowledge, such as new technologies, into existing knowledge and activities. Organizations with high absorptive capacity can adapt to environmental changes (Zahra & George, 2002).
Individual absorptive capacity, by contrast, refers to the ability of an individual to assimilate, understand, and effectively apply new knowledge. This capacity involves learning from diverse sources, including education, training, experience, and interactions with the external partners (Volberda et al., 2010). This work focuses on exploring and analyzing this concept in depth.
Volberda et al. (2010) identify five key factors that influence the absorptive capacity of individuals within organizations and emphasize that these areas warrant further research due to limited existing studies: the role of training and development activities in enhancing individual capabilities, the mechanisms through which leadership fosters knowledge sharing, the impact of organizational structures and informal networks on knowledge absorption, the processes by which individuals acquire and integrate knowledge in interorganizational collaborations, and the design of adaptive processes and routines to maximize knowledge application in dynamic environments.
These scholars further argue that these under-researched areas present important opportunities for advancing our understanding of how individuals within organizations can enhance their absorptive capacity. On the other hand, there is a noticeable lack of studies within the ACAP theory that focus on designing interventions aimed at improving the ACAP of individuals within organizations (Volberda et al., 2010; Sakhdari, 2016; Apriliyanti & Alon, 2017). This research, which is based on intervention design, contributes to addressing this gap in the literature.
The research question is:
What mechanisms in the collaboration between ALIAS and the business sector contribute to absorptive capacity at the organizational and individual levels?
3. Methodology
The action research methodology was chosen based on Susman and Evered (1978) and elaborated by Davison, Martinsons and Kock (2004) and Van Lieshout, Jacobs and Cardiff (2021). This approach aligns with the study's focus on collaboration and co-creation.
A literature review identified mechanisms (see Tables 1-3) relevant to the research context, synthesized into interventions. Semi-structured interviews with teachers, students, and professionals evaluated these interventions. Data analysis employed open, axial, and selective coding. The results guided the decision on whether additional action research cycles were needed and how they should be carried out. Consequently, four successive action research cycles were designed:
1. Developing collaboration between ALIAS, and ICT companies.
2. Establishing decentralized teams at several ICT companies where students, a teacher, and a company professional collaborate to solve a specific problem, with the teacher acting as a process facilitator.
3. Continuing decentralized team development at ICT companies but with both the teacher and student engaging as learners.
4. Creating centralized teams in an innovation lab at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences where students, a teacher, and a company professional collaborate to address a joint issue, with both the teacher and student engaging as learners.
The researcher and the participants were jointly responsible for and co-creators of the process and the interpretation of the research results. The researcher assumed three different roles: researcher, project leader, and content expert.
4. Literature Review
The literature review by Volberda et al. (2010) served as a starting point for identifying mechanisms to enhance individual absorptive capacity. A Scopus search using the keyword "ACAP" for English articles and reviews (2011-2020) yielded 106 relevant studies, with 19 focusing on micro-foundations, cross-functional activities, and organizational and managerial characteristics. Since absorptive capacity theory emphasizes the importance of acquiring knowledge from external partners but lacks structure for this process, insights from knowledge creation theory (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2000) and collaboration theory (Kaats & Opheij, 2012) were used to bridge this gap.
5. Identified Mechanisms
The research identifies 41 mechanisms from absorptive capacity, knowledge creation, and inter-organizational collaboration (Tables 1-3), which were used throughout the study.
Sixteen mechanisms have been identified that influence absorptive capacity at both organizational and individual levels (see Table 1). Active involvement of employees in cross-functional activities and decisionmaking processes has been shown to positively impact absorptive capacity. Initiating partnerships and sharing and developing knowledge with external partners are recognized as substantial factors promoting absorptive capacity. However, the literature does not provide insights into how collaboration with external partners can be practically achieved. It also offers little insight into how knowledge is shared and developed in partnerships.
Additionally, there are nine mechanisms identified for collaboration and sixteen for knowledge development (see Tables 2 and 3).
The total forty-one mechanisms show a wide variation in subjects, impact on ACAP, and level (individual and organizational). There is a significant difference in nature and perspective among these mechanisms. They have been independently studied with little interrelation. These mechanisms could not be directly translated into practice. However, they inspired the design of the action research cycles by clustering relevant mechanisms.
6. Four Action Research Cycles
For action research cycle 1, eight relevant mechanisms were identified that substantially contribute to the development of partnerships. These mechanisms were clustered and summarized into Mechanism A: A collaboration of organizations aimed at increasing ACAP requires a shared interest and ambition for knowledge development among the participating organizations.
For action research cycle 2, eight relevant mechanisms were identified that contribute to the development of collaborative learning environments within companies, where knowledge is shared and developed. These mechanisms were also clustered and summarized into Mechanism B: Social interaction and cross-functional communication between participants working on a current issue enhance the knowledge development of participants, provided they are learners, and the team size ranges between four and seven members.
For action research cycle 3, two relevant mechanisms were identified that promote the creation of collaborative learning environments within companies, where all participants take on a learning role. These two mechanisms were summarized into Mechanism C: The individual capacity for knowledge development increases when a participant takes part in a collaborative learning environment as a learner.
For action research cycle 4, fourteen relevant mechanisms were identified that contribute to the development of collaborative learning environments, centrally located in an innovation lab. These mechanisms were clustered into Mechanism D: To further promote ACAP, students are grouped into teams based on their backgrounds. A kick-off event is organized to introduce participants to the clients and issues. To achieve crossfunctional communication between teams, the teams work in the lab. An assessment is organized so participants can share and combine the developed knowledge with existing knowledge through dialogue.
These summarized mechanisms A, B, C, and D were translated into concrete interventions and the design of the respective action research cycles.
7. Evaluation of the Research Cycles
According to the literature review, evaluation (Boonstra, 2018), organization (Proven et al, 2008), and leadership (Darwish et al., 2018) play a dominant role in promoting ACAP at both the organizational and individual levels.
For the evaluation of the action research cycles, four relevant mechanisms were identified and clustered into the Evaluation Mechanism: By evaluating the collaborative learning environments, the shared interest and ambition are reaffirmed. This reduces misunderstandings between participants and clarifies and sharpens the goal of the collaboration. Participants articulate the added value of the current collaborative learning environment as well as areas for improvement. This process leads to a dynamic change over time in the collaborative learning environment.
For organizing collaborative learning environments, two relevant mechanisms were selected, clustered, and summarized into the Organization Mechanism: The organizational structure of the innovation lab is contentdriven without a hierarchical line. Based on current issues, teams were formed to collaborate. This organization represents a hybrid structure balancing the process-driven logic of vocational education and the result-driven logic of the professional field.
For leadership of the process, five relevant mechanisms were identified and summarized into one mechanism, known as the Leadership Mechanism: The project leader approaches participants to engage in a knowledgesharing process based on their own interests. The interest of the participants is crucial for their participation. A manager with subject matter expertise and a broad internal network can present relevant new knowledge, including training, from the external environment to the appropriate employees to expand their knowledge base. A gatekeeper with a broad network is beneficial for the knowledge flow into the collaboration.
Evaluation, organization, and leadership proved to be of great importance in all stages of the various successive 4 cycles of this process (Esmaili, 2024).
The evaluation mechanism was used to assess an action research cycle retrospectively, leading to the determination of necessary actions for the next research cycle to further develop the collaboration.The organization mechanism was used to make the organizational structure content-driven, meaning teams were formed based on current issues. This organization was structured to collaboratively solve current issues and develop knowledge for both individuals and the collaboration as a whole. The leadership mechanism ensured that the claims, concerns, and issues (CCI) of students, educators, and professionals were openly expressed and discussed.
8. Discussion
Action research cycle 1, on studying the mechanisms that contribute to the development of a collaboration of organizations aimed at joint knowledge development, it became clear that Mechanism A was merely the start of the process. This action research cycle demonstrated that the project leader's role was crucial in terms of the leadership mechanism described above. This leadership intervention developed trust among companies.
This proved to be crucial for the collaboration. A sense of mutual confidence allowed companies to share their actual claims, concerns, and issues with the project leader, which then enabled organizational adjustments. Initially, the companies intended to establish legal agreements for intellectual property on a project-by-project basis. However, this foundation of reliability enabled them to agree to handle knowledge-sharing arrangements for each assignment individually, fostering a more flexible and cooperative approach.
Trust among participants proved to be a crucial mechanism that facilitated open communication and collaboration. This aspect requires further research within the context of absorptive capacity (ACAR). Both the roles of trust and leadership remain underexplored in the ACAR literature, despite their significant influence on fostering collaboration and adaptability.
The following factors emerged from the action research cycles as important in developing a collaboration of organizations aimed at joined knowledge development:
* Perceived urgency: Collaboration between organizations in the field of cybersecurity was promoted by the combination of a rapidly changing knowledge domain and a tight labor market. For the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS), this collaboration was essential as they aimed to develop a bachelor's program in cybersecurity.
* Importance for companies: Companies saw the collaboration as an opportunity to connect with students during their education, which was advantageous given the tight labor market.
* Mutual dependency: The involved parties found a shared interest and ambition more quickly due to their mutual dependency. ICT programs needed input from companies to develop current and relevant cybersecurity programs, and companies needed graduates with an up-to-date education.
In practice, each action research cycle required additional interventions to foster knowledge sharing and development. The findings from the four action research cycles revealed that absorptive capacity at both the organizational and individual levels was influenced by various mechanisms. All 41 mechanisms identified in the literature played a role in enhancing the ACAR, although their precise impact was not always clear in practice.
The effectiveness of these mechanisms varied across the different cycles. Furthermore, each new cycle introduced an additional mechanism, resulting in all mechanisms being active by the fourth cycle.
The fourth cycle emphasized the importance of an appropriate organizational structure. The innovation lab had no hierarchical structure but worked based on current issues. This promoted collaboration and balanced the process-oriented logic of education with the result-oriented logic of the professional field. This led to teachers valuing both the process and the outcome, while professionals gained more attention to the process. These approaches brought the perspectives of teachers and professionals closer together.
A collaborative learning environment emerged, where teachers, students, and professionals worked together on current issues. This promoted the development of a shared interest among all participants, stimulating knowledge exchange and narrowing the gap between teachers and professionals. This allowed teachers to update their knowledge and train students with current knowledge.
Evaluations were essential in all four cycles. Through evaluations, the shared interest and ambition were reaffirmed, reducing misunderstandings. Additionally, evaluations led to concrete adjustments and interventions to promote ACAR, ensuring continuous development of the collaborative learning environment.
Mechanisms such as social interaction, cross-functional collaboration, knowledge sharing, and involving learners in current issues correspond to the socialization process of the SECI model. The use of assessments to externalize knowledge aligns with the externalization process, while the application of newly developed knowledge in education or products reflects the combination process. The integration of this knowledge into a knowledge repository fits within the internalization process.
Notably, the SECI model does not explicitly address the role of evaluation and leadership, while this research reveals that these factors, along with trust-building, are crucial for both ACAR and knowledge development. This study highlights the importance of a knowledge-sharing process for strengthening ACAR, addressing a knowledge gap in the ACAR literature (Volberda et al., 2010). Furthermore, the knowledge creation theory of Nonaka et al. (2000) provides a practical framework for structuring such processes, emphasizing evaluation, leadership, and trust as critical success factors.
The outcome and significance of the four action research cycles were the creation of a new bachelor's program in cybersecurity at the ALIAS, where students collaborate with teachers and professionals to address current issues. Together, they develop new products and services for companies. The knowledge gained in the action research cycles is embedded in the program, fostering a proactive mindset among students. They recognize their importance within the program; when they are absent, they are missed, and their return is eagerly anticipated. This collaboration emphasizes that everyone involved is both essential and indispensable.
The first cohort of this program graduated in June 2021, and the graduation ceremony highlighted an unprecedented number of students graduating cum laude. This was a unique achievement for the ICT programs at the AUAS and was attributed to the students' enthusiasm for engaging with teachers and professionals. Consequently, absenteeism and sick leave were virtually nonexistent.
This program has been recognized as innovative by the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organization (NVAO) due to its strong collaboration with the business sector. Media outlets have also highlighted the program's unique approach. For instance, Parool published a full-page article on June 1, 2021, while the television program EenVandaag featured the program on August 2, 2021, praising its partnership with companies.
9. Conclusion
The research question addressed is: What mechanisms in the collaboration between ALIAS and the business sector contribute to absorptive capacity at the organizational and individual levels?
The findings demonstrate that various mechanisms play a crucial role in enhancing absorptive capacity at both levels. Based on a literature study, a total of 41 mechanisms were identified, and the results of the four action research cycles strongly align with the SECI model of Nonaka et al. (2000).
In answering the research question, this research emphasizes the potential of networks between companies and educational institutions to enhance absorptive capacity and foster knowledge development for further research and practice. It demonstrates that insights from this field, along with knowledge development, and collaboration literature provide a valuable repertoire of interventions for strengthening such networks. Process characteristics such as social interaction, experience sharing, team performance, coaching, and information exchange significantly contribute to this development. Although absorptive capacity theory was initially regarded as foundational for collaborations in knowledge development, it primarily served as a starting point within the action research cycles. Throughout these cycles, evaluation, leadership, and trust emerged as pivotal factors for achieving progress.
References
Ali, L, Musawir, A. U., & Ali, M. (2018) "Impact of knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity on project performance: The moderating role of social processes. Journal of Knowledge Management", 22(2), 453477. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2016-0449
Apriliyanti, I. D. and Alon, I. (2017) "Bibliometric analysis of absorptive capacity", International Business Review, 26(5), 896907.
Benson, D. and Ziedonis, R. H. (2009) "Corporate venture capital as a window on new technologies: Implications for the performance of corporate investors when acquiring startups", Organization Science, 20(2), 329351. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0386
Boonstra, J. (2018) "Veränderen als samenspel: Een positieve kijk op het veränderen en vernieuwen van organisaties". Boom.
Cappella ri, G., Welter, C. V. N., Hermes, L. C. R. and Sausen, J. 0. (2019) "Absorptive capacity: Components and organizational mechanisms for its development", RAM. Revista de Administraçao Mackenzie, 20(6).
Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990) "Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation", Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
Córdova, F. M., Duran, C. A. and Galindo, R. (2015) "The Chilean medium-sized port companies in knowledge management: Diagnosis, challenges and trends", Procedía Computer Science, 55,11331142. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.procs.2015.07.082
Da Mota Pedrosa, A., Vailing, M. and Boyd, B. (2013) "Knowledge related activities in open innovation: Managers' characteristics and practices", International Journal of Technology Management, 61(3/4), 254-273.
Dahlin, P., Moilanen, M., Østbye, S. E. and Pesämaa, 0. (2020) "Absorptive capacity, co-creation, and innovation performance: A cross-country analysis of gazelle and non-gazelle companies", Baltic Journal of Management, 15(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-05-2019-0161
Darawong, C. (2015) "The impact of cross-functional communication on absorptive capacity of NPD teams at high technology firms in Thailand", The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 26(1), 3844. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.hitech.2015.04.004
Darwish, T. K., Zeng, J., Rezaei Zadeh, M. and Haak-Saheem, W. (2018) "Organizational learning of absorptive capacity and innovation: Does leadership matter?", European Management Review, 17(1), 83-100.
Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004) "Principles of canonical action research". Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65-86. https://doi.Org/10.llll/i.1365-2575.2004.00162.x
Esmaili, R. (2024) "Actie onderzoek naar absorptiecapaciteit in een samenwerking van het ICT-beroepsonderwijs en het werkveld" [Doctoral dissertation, submitted], University of humanistic studies.
Hernández-Perlines, F., Moreno-Garcia, J. and Yáñez-Araque, В. (2017) "Family firm performance: The influence of entrepreneurial orientation and absorptive capacity", Psychology and Marketing, 34(11), 10571068. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21045
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. (2006) "Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators", Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
Kaats, E. and Opheij, W. (2012) Leren samenwerken tussen organisaties: Samen bouwen aan allianties, netwerken, ketens en partnerships. Kluwer.
Kazadi, K., Lievens, A. and Mahr, D. (2016) "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders", Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 525-540.
Lewin, A., Massini, S. and Peeters, C. (2011) "Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines", Organization Science, 22(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0525
Löwik, S. J. A., Kraaijenbrink, J. and Groen, A. J. (2016) "The team absorptive capacity triad: A configurational study of individual, enabling, and motivating factors", Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(5), 1083ПОЗ. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-ll-2015-0433
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (2000) "The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation", Oxford University Press.
Ojo, A. and Raman, M. (2017) "Individual differences and knowledge acquisition capability in joint ICT project teams in Malaysia", International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 17(1), 2039. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2017.083740
Pertusa-Ortega, E., Zaragoza-Sáez, P. and Claver-Cortés, E. (2010) "Can formalization, complexity, and centralization influence knowledge performance?", Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 310320. https://do¡.org/10.1016/¡.ibusres.2009.03.015
Pittz, T. G., Intindola, M. L., Adler, T., Rogers, S. and Gard, C. (2019) "Collaborating smartly: The role of open strategy in absorptive capacity", Journal of Small Business Management, 57(4), 1595-1615. https://doi.org/10.llll/isbm.12430
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008) "Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness". Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252. https://doi.org/10.1093/iopart/mum015
Rothaermel, F. T. and Alexandre, M. T. (2009) "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity", Organization Science, 20(4), 759-780. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0404
Sakhdari, K. (2016) "Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Review and Future Research Agenda", Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(8), 5-18. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1007
Susman, G. and Evered, R. (1978) "An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research", Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582-603. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392581
Tortoriello, M. (2015). The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: The moderating effects of structural holes on innovation generation based on external knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 586597. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2228
Tynjälä, P., Häkkinen, P. and Hämäläinen, R. (2014) "Integration of theory and practice", British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 990-1000. https://doi.org/10.llll/bjet.12164
Van Lieshout, F., Jacobs, G. and Cardiff, S. (2021) "Actieonderzoek: Principes en onderzoeksmethoden voor participatief veränderen (2e herziene ediţie)", Assen: Konin klij ke Van Gorcum.
Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. and Lyles, M. A. (2010) "Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity - how to realize its potential in the organization field", Organization Science, 21(4), 1-21.
Yang, S-Y. and Tsai, K-H. (2019) "Lifting the veil on the link between absorptive capacity and innovation: The roles of crossfunctional integration and customer orientation", Industrial Marketing Management, 82, Wl- 130. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.006
Yusuf, 0. (2024) "Bridging the gap: Aligning cybersecurity education with industry needs". International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Engineering, 4(3), 1-8. https://doi.Org/10.55529/ijitc.43.l.8
Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002) "Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension", Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.
Copyright Academic Conferences International Limited 2025