Yahya Agung Kuntadi, Ujang Sumarwan, Mukhamad Najib, Siti Jahroh


This study aims to determine the effect of moderator variables on the relationship between decision-makers behavioral preferences and innovation adoption. Moderator variables are collaboration experience with university and firm characteristics such as ownership of the firm, size of the firm, and status of the firm. There is still a limited understanding of decision-makers behavioral preferences in the adoption of innovations from university, even though this understanding is needed to enhance the success of university and industry collaboration. This study explores several moderator variables that have not been previously studied together before on the relationship between decision-makers behavioral preferences and innovation adoption. This study distributes questionnaires to 365 respondents who are decision-makers of food and beverage firms in Jakarta and surrounding areas. Quantitative analysis of SEM data was carried out with LISREL. The results showed that decision-makers behavior preferences have a significant relationship with innovations adoption and only the status of the firm and collaboration experience with university influence the relationship between decision-makers behavioral preferences and innovations adoption. The results of this study reflect that some moderator variables have a significant effect on the relationship between decision-makers behavioral preferences and innovations adoption. Future research may employ other moderator variables such as government regulations to find out its influence on the adoption of innovation from the university.


decision-makers behavioral preferences; innovations adoption; firm characteristics; collaboration experience

Full Text:



Akcigit U, Kerr WR. 2018. Growth through Heterogeneous Innovations. Journal of Political Economy, 126(4):1374-1443.

Angelmar R. 1990. Product innovation: a tool for competitive advantage. European Journal of Operational Research, 47 (2):182-189.

Ankrah S, Al-Tabbaa O. 2015. Universities-industry collaboration: a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3):387 - 408.

Barbosa N, Faria AP, Eiriz V. 2014. Industry- and firm-specific factors of innovation novelty. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(3):865-902.

Bloedon RV, Stokes DR. 1994. Making university/industry collaborative research succeed. Research Technology Management, 37(2):44-48.

Bstieler L, Hemmert M, Barczak G. 2015. Trust formation in university-industry collaborations in the US biotechnology industry: IP policies, shared governance, and champions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32:111-121.

Cook TD, Campbell DT. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago (US): Rand McNaIly.

Damanpour F. 1991. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3):555-590.

Damanpour F, Schneider M. 2009. Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3):495-522.

Dyer JS, Jia J. 2013. Preference theory. In Gass SI, Fu MC, editors. Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Boston (US): Springer. pp 1156-1159.

Findik D, Beyhan B. 2015. The impact of external collaborations on firm innovation performance: evidence from Turkey. Procedia – Social Behavior Sciences, 195:1425-1434.

Hair Jr JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG. 2014. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. European Business Review. (26)2:106-121.

Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper eschelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review. 9 (2):193-206.

Ireland RD, Hitt MA, Vaidyanath D. 2002. Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 28(3):413-446.

Jensen MC, Meckling WH. 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial, behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3(4):305-360.

Karim KE, Pinsker R, Ashok R. 2013. Firm size and the voluntary disclosure of non-financial information by private versus public firm managers. Managerial Auditing Journal, 28(9):866-892.

Kimberly JR, Evanisko MJ. 1981. Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24:689-713.

Koeske GF. 1993. Moderator variables in social work research. Journal of Social Service Research, 16(1-2):159-178.

Kousar S, Sabri PSU, Zafar M, Akhtar A. 2017. Technological factors and adoption of green innovation: moderating role of government intervention: a case of SMEs in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 11(3):833-861.

MacKinnon DP. 2011. Integrating mediators and moderators in research design. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(6):675-681.

Meyer AD, Goes JB. 1988. Organizational assimilation of innovations: a multi-level contextual analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 31:897-923.

Miller D, Friesen PH. 1984. Organizations. Englewood Cliffs (US):Prentice-Hall.

Ng TWH, Feldman DC. 2013. A meta-analysis of the relationships of age and tenure with innovation-related behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4):585-616.

Ngongo BP, Ochola P, Ndegwa J, Katuse P. 2019. The moderating role of top executives’ sex, level of education and knowledge on adoption of mobile health applications by hospitals in Kenya. Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 11:115-126.

OECD. 2017. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data: Oslo Manual. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Paris (FR): OECD Publishing.

Perkmann M, Walsh K. 2007. University–industry relationships and open innovation: towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4): 259-280.

Pittayasophon S, Intarakumnerd P. 2016. University-industry collaboration in Thailand: firm characteristics, collaboration modes and outcomes. Institutions and Economies, 8(3):37-59.

Porter ME. 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York (US): The Free Press.

Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1):116-145.

Simon, H. A. 1955. A behavioural model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 69 (1):99-118.

Simonin BL. 1997. The importance of collaborative know-how: an empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5):1150-1174.

Takayama T, Watanabe T. 2015. The effect of behavioral preferences on skill acquisition in determining unspecified, suitable action patterns to control humanoid robots. 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 25-29 August; Milan (IT): IEEE and EMB. hlm 7586-7589.

Taylor S, Todd P. 1995. Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: a study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2):137-155.

Urquhart R, Kendell C, Geldenhuys L, Ross A, Rajaraman M, Folkes A, Madden LL, Sullivan V, Rayson D, Porter DA. 2019. The role of scientific evidence in decisions to adopt complex innovations in cancer care settings: a multiple case study in Nova Scotia, Canada. Implementation Science, 14(14):1-12.

Vagnani G, Volpe L. 2017. Innovation attributes and managers' decisions about the adoption of innovations in organizations: A meta-analytical review. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1(2):107-133.

Vishwasrao S, Bosshardt W. 2001. Foreign ownership and technology adoption: evidence from Indian firms. Journal of Development Economics, 65(2):367-387.



  • There are currently no refbacks.