Catalytic capacity of technological innovation: Multidimensional definition and measurement from the perspective of knowledge spillover

As participants of innovation activities, innovation catalysts play a crucial supporting role in enhancing innovation efficiency. Nevertheless, current studies focus more on the value of innovation catalysis, and take the subjective evaluation of the questionnaire survey as the core method, which is more suitable for individuals. Meanwhile, studies on the definition and measurement of catalytic capacity at the organizational level remain scarce. By analyzing the nature of knowledge spillover in innovation catalysis, this study proposes a two-dimensional conceptual structure model of the catalytic capacity of technological innovation (CCTI) at the organizational level, namely the catalytic capacity of exogenous spillover (CCExS) and endogenous spillover (CCEnS). Then, based on the characteristics of patent cooperative applicants ranking and citation information, we construct a multidimensional measurement index system from two aspects, catalytic strength and breadth. In addition, 24 innovation catalysts from China, the United States, Japan, and South Korea were selected as samples to verify the validity of the measurement, through revealing and explaining the differences and characteristics of their CCTI. The results showed that (i) CCTI has a multidimensional structure, which can be measured from four aspects: degree, quality, geographical scope, and entity scope. (ii) Innovation catalysts showed certain capability preferences, either favoring CCExS (Samsung Electronics Company), or CCEnS (State Grid Corporation of China), or developing both (Toyota). (iii) Compared with company catalysts, whose catalytic capacity varied significantly with a broader distribution range, university and research institution catalysts' capacity was at a low level, but showed a relatively consistent level in each indicator. (iv) CCEnS of innovation catalysts in China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States decreased in order, while their CCExS ranked opposite. Besides, these characteristics of CCTI might result from different innovation strategies, innovation motivations, levels of technology development, and strengths of intellectual property protection. Overall, this study enriches and deepens the concept and measurement of CCTI at the organizational level, and the findings can provide a new viewpoint and method for the assessment and selection of innovation partners, catalytic capacity development direction, and ways and strategies for innovation cooperation.