## 4 Results
### Sufficiency Analysis
On the other hand, the unique coverage score shows the proportion of cases that can be explained exclusively by that recipe. It is meaningful because it indicates how many cases a given recipe can explain without any other recipe offering explanation. Often there is considerable overlap between recipes, so it is not unusual for the unique coverage scores to be rather low (\(<\)0.15) [91]. Thus, recipes with higher unique coverage gain relevance, because without them more cases would be beyond the explanatory reach of the model. Finally, the recipe's consistency score reflects the amount of cases that do not fit with this specific path. The lower the consistency score of a path, the more cases do not fit the patterns identified by it, or, in other words, the more substantial are the contradictions that certain cases pose to this recipe. [PERSON] [95] recommends a consistency threshold of 0.80; in our case, all recipe scores comply with this threshold. Moreover, Table 5 shows the overall coverage and consistency for the solution which indicates the robustness of our solution. The solution coverage score reflects the empirical importance of a given solution. It should be as high as possible, usually above a score of 0.25. The solution consistency score confirms that the specific configuration of antecedents is sufficient for explaining the outcome condition [25]. Different authors consider robust solutions as those whose consistency thresholds are at least 0.75, but preferably 0.85 or higher [84; 95; 96]. Regarding the overall consistency and coverage values obtained from the intermediate solution of our research, we stress that they surpass the minimum value considered suitable; the consistency score is 0.84 (indicating that the combined recipes account for about 84% of the membership to the outcome), while the coverage score is 0.56. Finally, Table 5 shows the overlapping coverage score. The extent of overlap indicates two things. At dataset-level, cases gather along certain dimensions on the causal conditions. At single case-level, many cases with the occurrence of the outcome can be explained in more than one way [91]. In our case, the overlapping coverage score is 0.33. Our sufficiency analysis shows five different paths to the outcome in line with our proposition 1. Actually, as stated before, all of them comply with the threshold of 0.8 recommended by [PERSON] [25]. The analysis suggests two differentiated tendencies for achieving the outcome (to be a highly technological innovator). Configurations 1, 2, 3, and 4 refer to companies that either are early adopters of the disruptive technology (as stated in proposition 2), or have a strong absorptive capacity (as stated in proposition 3), or both together (they are early adopters and furthermore they have a strong absorptive capacity). This group of configurations, in which the condition of size of the company is not present, reaches a higher raw coverage scores and consequently represents a higher amount of cases. This means, regardless of the size, a firm can reach high levels of technological innovation through different paths. On the other hand, configuration 5 refers to those companies that, not being early adopters or not having a high absorptive capacity, are large and experienced in R&D tasks as well as they invest important amount of resources in R&D activities. In short, in four out of the five paths proposed by the fsQCA analysis, early adoption, strong absorptive capacity, or both are present as antecedent conditions to be a strong technological innovator in terms of product or process developments. These findings show that early adoption and high absorptive capacity may be important conditions, which matches our theoretical expectations and is in line with the innovation and knowledge management literature. Hence, our results are aligned with the propositions that we outlined in the theoretical framework, as the presence of equifinality, the inclusion of early adoption, and factors associated with absorptive capacity are present in most paths.