## 1 Introduction
Consequently, considering internal heterogeneity in clusters in terms of firms' typologies, we suggest that there are diverse paths to reach innovation outcomes, and we aim to gauge whether disruptive technology adoption and absorptive capacity are necessary and/or sufficient conditions to lead to innovation performance. Addressing this gap, we aim to offer a more complete and real picture of the innovation determinants in clusters. To reach the above purpose, this paper relies on a complex causality [24] methodology, the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) technique [25; 26; 27]. Empirically, we focused our analysis on the Spanish ceramic tile cluster. This territorial agglomeration is situated in the Eastern region of Spain and it consists of a small area containing 118 ceramic tile producers along with an ecosystem populated with specialized firms, institutions, and supporting organizations. In this context, in the last decade, a disruptive technology was introduced that has significantly affected not only the cluster structure as a whole, but also the individual companies' strategies and performances. Relying on this comparative analysis of innovation determinants in firms, our research has a two-fold contribution. First, we provide empirical evidence of the mechanisms that companies use to achieve technological innovation in clusters, and, second, we contribute to the existing literature on cluster innovation by widening the understanding of the effects of interactions between firms' internal attributes and technology adoption. The paper is structured as follows. First, we describe the theoretical framework; then we justify and formulate our propositions. After that, we introduce the empirical section, and, finally, we address the discussion of results and further conclusions. Theoretical Framework and Propositions: New Technology Adoption and Absorptive Capacity in Clusters  
The literature has widely demonstrated how clustered firms are able to benefit from a series of resources and capacities that, flowing at cluster level, are not considered to be exclusive of a specific company. Authors have named this type of \"common\" resource as \"higher-order resources and capabilities\" [4]. Acknowledging the importance and influence of this systemic level [28] on firm behavior, from an individual firm perspective internal attributes influence on its individual outcomes. This internal firm perspective is the focus of this paper. On the other hand, another avenue of research has focused on disruptive innovations, intending to capture the radicalness and breakthrough of some new technologies and innovations [29; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35]. In this research, we stress the importance of those technologies and innovations beyond incremental or minor changes. These distant technologies, which may be created or adopted by companies, frequently lead to the replacement of previous products and technologies by new ones that provide the market with higher value. In this sense, scholars highlight the importance of disruptive changes as promoters of new markets that may break existing market linkages [16; 32; 36; 37]. We adopted the suggestion made by [PERSON] [7] about the work by [PERSON] [34] of distinguishing between \"radical innovations\" (for product innovations) and \"disruptive innovations\" (for technological/process innovations). In short, for the purpose of this paper, and with a focus on the cluster context, we consider a disruptive innovation as a technological change that incorporates new knowledge, resources, or skills that make obsolete the value of incumbent systems and technologies in the cluster. Previous literature has described how local cluster characteristics, such as intense relationships, or trust among others make these contexts receptive to improvements thanks to the sharing and modification of existing flowing knowledge and technologies [38] rather than the generation of new and disruptive one.