R&D Collaborations and Product Innovation*

This paper studies the relative impact on product innovation of research and development (R&D) collaborations with universities, suppliers, customers, and competitors. It argues that each type of R&D collaboration differs in terms of the breadth of new knowledge provided to the firm and in the ease of access of this new knowledge, resulting in a different impact on product innovation. As a result, it proposes that R&D collaborations with universities are likely to have the highest impact on product innovation, followed by R&D collaborations with suppliers, customers, and, finally, competitors. These arguments are tested on the R&D collaborations undertaken by a sample of 781 manufacturing firms during 1998–2002. The tests find that R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest positive impact on product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities. Surprisingly, R&D collaborations with customers do not appear to affect product innovation, and collaborations with competitors appear to harm it. Moreover, the positive influence of R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers is sustained over the long‐term, but the negative influence of R&D collaborations with competitors is, fortunately, short‐lived. These findings indicate that ease of knowledge access, rather than breadth of knowledge, appears to drive the success of R&D collaborations for product innovation. R&D collaborations with suppliers or universities, which are characterized by relatively easy knowledge access, have a positive influence on product innovation, whereas R&D collaborations with customers or competitors, which are characterized by reduced ease in knowledge access, are not related or are even negatively related to product innovation. Moreover, to achieve product innovation with the help of R&D collaborations, it appears that the collaboration must first have mechanisms in place to facilitate the transfer of knowledge; once these are in place, it is better if the partner has a relatively narrow knowledge base. Thus, while R&D collaborations with both suppliers and universities are positively related to product innovation, the narrow knowledge base provided by collaborations with suppliers appears to have a larger positive impact on product innovation than the wider knowledge base provided by collaborations with universities. These arguments and findings are important and novel. The paper is one of the first to theoretically explain and empirically show that various types of collaborations have a differential influence on product innovation. It goes beyond previous literature by providing a theoretical logic for ranking the likely impact of types of collaborations on product innovation. The study also suggests to managers to carefully select the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Collaborations with suppliers appear to be the most promising for product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities, whereas collaborations with competitors may be detrimental to product innovation.     

Types of R&D Collaborations and Process Innovation: The Benefit of Collaborating Upstream in the Knowledge Chain

This paper explains how research and development (R&D) collaborations impact process innovation; given the differences in innovation mechanisms, prior insights from studies of product innovation do not necessarily apply to process innovation. Extending the knowledge‐based view of the firm, this paper classifies four types of R&D collaborations—with universities, suppliers, competitors, and customers—in terms of two knowledge dimensions: position in the knowledge chain and contextual knowledge distance. Position in the knowledge chain is the position of the R&D collaboration partner in the knowledge chain of the industry—the input–output sequence of activities that result in the transformation of raw materials into products that are used by end customers. Based on this knowledge chain, this paper considers universities and suppliers as upstream R&D collaborators, and competitors and customers as downstream R&D collaborators. Contextual knowledge distance is the difference in industry‐related contexts of operation of the R&D collaboration partners and the firm. Based on this, this paper views R&D collaborators that are suppliers and competitors as having low contextual knowledge distance to the firm, and R&D collaborators that are customers and universities as having high contextual knowledge distance to the firm. Using this classification, this paper proposes a ranking of R&D collaborations in terms of their impact on process innovation: R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest impact, followed by R&D collaborations with universities, then R&D collaborations with competitors, and finally R&D collaborations with customers. These arguments are tested on a four‐year panel of 781 manufacturing firms. The results of the analyses indicate that R&D collaborations with suppliers and universities appear to have a positive impact on process innovation, R&D collaborations with customers appear to have no impact, and R&D collaborations with competitors appear to have a negative impact. As a consequence, the main driver of the impact of R&D collaborations on process innovation appears to be position in the knowledge chain rather than contextual knowledge distance. These novel ideas and findings contribute to the literature on process innovation. Even though process innovation tends to be internal and tacit to the firm, it can still benefit from external R&D collaborations; this paper is the first to analyze this relationship and provide a theoretical framework for understanding why this would be the case. This study also has important managerial implications. It suggests that managers need to be careful in choosing the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Engaging in R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers appears to be helpful for process innovation, whereas conducting R&D collaborations with competitors may potentially harm process innovation.     

Firms' open innovation policies,laboratories' external collaborations,and laboratories' R&D performance

The value of the open innovation approach is now widely recognized, and the practice has been extensively researched, but still very little is known about the relative impact of firm‐level and laboratory‐level open innovation policies and practices on R&D performance. This study attempts to measure that impact by analyzing a sample of 203 laboratories of Japanese firms located in Japan. It examines simultaneously the effects of firm‐level open innovation policy and laboratory‐level external collaborations on laboratory R&D performance. The study aims to go beyond a general understanding of the importance of open innovation; it shows how an open innovation policy can have a positive and significant effect on collaborations between a laboratory and local universities or business organizations. The results also show how an open innovation policy can contribute to the laboratory's R&D performance by facilitating external collaborations by the laboratories. It demonstrates how these factors affect R&D performance in different ways, depending on the type of R&D tasks. Our findings suggest several theoretical and practical implications in the field of R&D management.     

R&D collaboration as a global competitive tactic —Biotechnology and the ethical pharmaceutical industry

Abstract
In a technology driven industry, emergence of a new technology can trigger changes in the associated market structure and in the nature of competitive forces – changes herein defined as an industry paradigm shift. Biotechnology has precipitated such a paradigm shift in the ethical pharmaceutical industry, and one consequence is a proliferation of R&D collaborations. However, this paradigm shift is occurring at the same time that global competition is intensifying, and biotechnology R&D collaboration has become a tool in the geopolitical strategies of the major industrial nations. Government intervention to promote such collaborations can have deleterious long-term effects, as described earlier for the semiconductor industry. These effects are posed again for biotechnology and the ethical pharmaceutical industry, in the hopes of provoking a dialogue among concerned parties. These issues must be addressed soon, if the competitive position of this industry –as well as governments and universities – is not to be compromised.     

Exploring the Motivational and Behavioral Foundations of External Technology Experts’ Knowledge Sharing in Collaborative R&D Projects: The Contingency Role of Project Formalization

High‐tech manufacturers increasingly rely on the knowledge contributions of external technology experts (ETEs), who contribute to collaborative R&D projects on behalf of suppliers. Many scholars have considered knowledge sharing in R&D collaborations from a firm‐level or project‐level perspective and focused on formalization as a potential remedy. While individual supplier employees at the operative level make the decision to share critical knowledge, the individual‐level perspective in literature on knowledge sharing in collaborative R&D projects is virtually nonexistent. Because knowledge sharing in collaborative R&D is a largely discretionary act on behalf of the supplier employee, personal motivations rather than inter‐firm relationship elements (e.g., network position or dependency) become the primary determinant of one’s sharing behavior. Abstracting from or ignoring these motivations of supplier employees in studies on collaborative R&D may obscure important insights for R&D managers. This study is an important first step in providing the empirical evidence needed to uncover the motivational and behavioral foundations for ETEs’ knowledge sharing in a collaborative R&D setting. Building on theories of gift and social exchange, this article identifies customer stewardship and distributive fairness as two important personal motivations of ETEs to share knowledge. Project formalization is considered as a key contingency condition. Analyzing survey responses of 186 ETEs, a multilevel regression‐based moderated‐mediation analysis of direct and indirect effects shows that customer stewardship predicts an ETE’s knowledge sharing behavior under (very) low levels of project formalization, and distributive fairness predicts knowledge sharing behavior under medium to high levels of formalization. Together, the results provide R&D project managers who aim to leverage external knowledge contributions with valuable insights that have been obscured in past firm‐level collaborative R&D studies.     

The co-production of value in digital,university–industry R&D collaborative projects

In the context of R&D collaborations between universities and industry, this study investigates the co-production process and the contextual elements that shape it. We develop a conceptual framework that builds on the service-dominant logic perspective that value propositions emerge from the interaction between co-producing parties and the integration of resources. Specifically, the framework explicates how individual, organizational, and external factors shape the type of interactions and the platforms used, the availability and use of operand and operant resources, and the organizational and individual outcomes sought in R&D collaborative projects. We investigate the interplay among these factors through group interviews with UK industry practitioners and university researchers in the context of digital research projects. The types of interaction, resources, and outcomes sought that characterize successful R&D collaboration are revealed, and the contextual aspects that enable, facilitate, block, or create barriers to successful R&D collaborations are identified. Finally, we propose five practical principles for the successful development of collaborative R&D projects within the university–industry context.     

R&D management through network mapping: using the Internet to identify strategic network actors in cooperative research networks

Most R&D management techniques to date have emphasized the immediate organizational context or the internal structure and process of the R&D project. Recently however attempts have been made at situating R&D management in a wider context of inter‐organizational R&D activities. This paper presents the technique of R&D network mapping as a means of providing strategic intelligence to the R&D manager. The paper backgrounds this technique with a discussion of the general issue and significance of R&D networks. A methodology for R&D network mapping is then exemplified by outlining how a network database of cooperating projects and institutes in the telecom research sector was built by utilizing the World Wide Web. Finally a number of suggestions are made as to how and when network mapping should be applied in strategic R&D management.     

Interorganizational collaboration strategies and innovation abandonment: The more the merrier?

Investments in innovation activities involve uncertainty. Abandonments of innovative projects are frequent and can entail great losses. Interorganizational collaboration can help a firm to leverage and complement its own competencies and technologies, contrasting the factors that may cause the abandonment of innovation activities. This article shows that firms collaborating with a wider network of external partners to conduct their innovation activities are less likely to abandon them. The article also analyses how different categories of partners among customers & suppliers, competitors, consultants & private R&D institutions, universities & public R&D institutions are associated with the risk of innovation abandonment. Finally, the results show that international collaborations are more likely associated with innovation abandonment than domestic ones. Strategic and theoretical implications are drawn.     

Exploratory Results on the Importance of R&D Knowledge Domains in Businesses with Different Strategies

A number of studies have described the consequences of the changing patterns in the business environment for R&D departments. Fewer studies have addressed the specific implications of the changing business environment for the agenda of R&D managers. Gupta and Wilemon (1996) have provided R&D managers with a priority list for action designed to be applicable to R&D departments independent of business strategy. However, a substantial body of literature suggests that the priority listing may be different for R&D departments in businesses with different strategies. Against this background this study sets out to determine whether the priority listing is different for Miles and Snow's (1978) strategic archetypes of prospectors, analyzers, defenders and reactors. A total of 72 R&D managers of businesses competing in industrial markets in the Netherlands provided the data to test for the existence of these differences. The results indicate that the priority listings are indeed different for R&D departments in businesses with different strategies. This finding has important practical implications. The priority listings can be used by R&D managers to assess which R&D capabilities have to be developed in order to match R&D strategy with business strategy and meet the criteria for getting more commercial payback from R&D in a changing business environment.     

Joint learning in R&D collaborations and the facilitating relational practices

The present study considers joint learning as a relational dynamic capability and examines the role of relational practices as enablers of joint learning in R&D collaboration between suppliers and their customers. The study applies a qualitative comparative case method to analyze seven dyadic cases, selected based on a quantitative dataset and cluster analysis. Our results indicate that in dyadic relationships, firms would benefit from developing practices related to relational investments, relational structures, and relational capital that facilitate joint learning and yield collaborative advantages from R&D interactions. This paper contributes to the existing literature on joint learning in R&D collaborations by defining joint learning as a relational dynamic capability and by focusing on the practices that facilitate it in R&D collaboration.     

Absorbing partner knowledge in R&D collaborations – the influence of founders on potential and realized absorptive capacity

We investigate whether founder participation in research and development collaborations enhances the two dimensions of absorptive capacity (ACAP): potential ACAP and realized ACAP. Based on a longitudinal firm-patent dataset of over 700 collaborations, and using a novel measure of ACAP, we find that founder involvement enhances potential ACAP provided the knowledge bases of focal firm and partner are related. Once knowledge has been absorbed, founder involvement increases realized ACAP irrespective of relatedness. Thus, we highlight the merit of treating the dimensions of ACAP separately by showing differing effects of founder involvement. Our paper emphasizes the outstanding role founders play in the R&D process of their firms. Firms should consider carefully the allocation of team members to R&D projects because team members differ with respect to their ACAP.     

The up- and downside of collaboration in core and non-core technologies – Selective,contingent, and orchestrated openness in R&D collaborations

This paper contributes to the current debate about the “knowledge sharing-protecting” tension in R&D collaborations by introducing a new angle for analyzing this paradox. Considering the role of internal knowledge sources of the firm, the paper introduces and empirically analyses the interplay between three knowledge governance mechanisms (selective, contingent, and orchestrated openness) and the different technological fields of the firm (core, related non-core, and distant non-core technologies). Based on a unique first-hand large-scale project-level dataset from a Global 100 firm across a 10-year span, this research finds that R&D collaborations selectively conducted in firm’s related non-core technological fields promise the best innovation performance. Further, by orchestrating its projects across core and non-core technological fields in the same knowledge portfolio, the firm can leverage a network of inter-connected projects when collaborating with external partners. As such, the firm can strategically “distribute” collaboration risks across multiple projects, while optimize its access to external knowledge that it intends to get. Finally, contrary to the common assumption, this study does not find any discriminating factors against market-based partners in their contribution to innovation in both core and non-core technologies.     

Building product diversification through contractual R&D agreements

Firms engage in contractual R&D agreements for several reasons, including product innovation motives, firm performance goals, and technological diversification. This article demonstrates that firms also might enter into external collaborations to penetrate new markets. This study therefore explores both the effects and the strategic risks of contractual R&D agreements and their related knowledge structures for a firm's capacity to diversify into new markets. Drawing on a novel panel data set obtained from 102 Fortune high‐tech firms, the authors demonstrate that strategic alliances enable knowledge‐integrated firms to penetrate new businesses; however, these organizations should be cautious about engaging in licensing‐in agreements, which have negative effects on product diversification.     

Inter-firm Collaboration and Learning: The Case of the Japanese Automobile Industry

This paper investigates the effect of intra-firm Research and Development expenditure and inter-firm collaboration on firm performance. It is proposed that R&D expenditures enable a company to improve knowledge and assimilate the exchange of information within non-routine collaboration activities. The hypotheses are tested by an empirical study on inter-firm technical collaboration in Japanese Automobile firms during the years 1975–1995, using the method of first-order auto-regression on a panel data set. The findings indicate that R&D expenditure increases performance, but do not allow clear conclusions on the effects of collaborations.     

Emerging challenges for R&D executives — an American perspective

In recent years, many companies have witnessed dramatic changes in their business environment. Emergence of global markets and competitors coupled with new competitive strategies based on quality, speed and/or alliances have forced business managers — especially in the United States — to adopt new management strategies, structures and systems. These in turn have caused many R&D executives to progress from their traditional agenda of managing R&D activities in domestic laboratories to a new agenda of coordinating and integrating technology development and exploitation on a world-wide basis. This paper discusses this evolution of R&D management agenda in the United States and its implications. It also reviews the approaches being used and the experiences being gained by the American R&D management community to address the emerging challenges.     

Assessing collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects: the case of the UK LINK scheme

The paper addresses the evaluation of outcomes of collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects. It draws on some empirical analysis carried out on data and information gathered under the UK 'LINK' scheme, a programme supporting R&D collaborative projects and assessing collaboration outcomes. A new indicator of performance, based on the outputs of LINK projects, has been constructed. It provides a relative and quite consistent measure of performance for making comparisons among different LINK projects. However it does not correlate with the more subjective grade applied by LINK's own management. For further improving evaluating mechanisms, more attention should be paid to the benefits that universities and companies as well as governments are drawing from R&D collaborations.     

Core competencies and the strategic management of R&D

There is an increasing concern amongst R&D managers and their immediate 'customers' and sponsors within companies to have reliable mechanisms to direct R&D simultaneously toward effective rapid innovation and accumulation of long term technological strength. This is leading R&D managers to seek analytical tools to help them identify technologies which have particular significance for competitive advantage, for multiple SBUs, and for longer term strategic positioning, and to manage them in ways which do not leave them at the mercy of business unit strategies, but situate them closer to the core of corporate strategies. This paper conducts an examination of the parallel literature on the idea of core competencies as a new paradigm in corporate strategy and shows that core competencies can be useful focusing devices for assisting in the creation of this linkage between the technological and non-technological aspects of the corporate strategy agenda. Implications are drawn out for: R&D decisions in the areas of shaping strategic research programmes; funding and organisation regimes for R&D and measuring the effectiveness of R&D.     

The effect of compensation program and structure on sbu competitive strategy: A study of technology-intensive firms

In this paper we examine the impact various compensation programs have upon business-level strategy for technology-intensive firms. Similarly, we examine the effect of centralization of R&D and non-R&D decision-making, formality of procedures, and SBU size on competitive strategy. Analysis of data from 79 SBUs suggest that there is a resource trade-off between marketing-oriented strategies and R&D-oriented strategies, and that managers who operate under certain types of compensation programs will tend to favor R&D/innovation strategies and capital investment over other alternatives. Structure and competitive position also appear to play a significant role in determining technology and investment strategy.     

Networks and the Decision to Persist with Underperforming R&D Projects

Drawing on aspiration level theory and the networks literature, this paper develops a model toward decision makers' persistence with underperforming R&D projects based on the perceived properties of their personal network. The assumption is that positive feedback from network partners motivates persistence, and that this effect is multiplied when the decision makers' network is larger and denser, when network ties are predominantly strong, and when communication frequency within the network is high. The model is tested by a field experiment and conjoint methodology. Analysis of 1632 persistence decisions nested within 51 scientists responsible for R&D projects reveals that more positive feedback enhances persistence of underperforming R&D projects, and that this effect becomes stronger with increasing network size, network density, and communication frequency. These findings extend the project management literature by focusing on the social environment of the decision maker as one so far neglected factor in empirical studies on persistence decisions. Moreover, this study is among the first to investigate contingency relationships between feedback received from network partners and network structure. Finally, while most studies have emphasized that individuals and organizations can profit from their engagements in social networks, this paper suggests a potential dark side of networks by showing that networks can encourage decision makers to persist with their investment in an underperforming—and potentially failing—project. These results can help project managers involved in networking activities to better understand the effects of these activities on their decision policies, and thus draw better and more accurate decisions. Second, this study provides insights into how organizational strategy with respect to dissemination of R&D results and involvement of the organization's R&D managers in the scientific community influences the persistence of underperforming R&D projects, and thereby the organization's R&D expenditures. This can assist top managers to design financial controls and allocate financial resources to managers of underperforming R&D projects in line with the organization's networking strategy.     

Strategies for Linking Vertical Cooperative R&D to Commercialization in Korea

Since 1982, the government of Korea has actively promoted vertical cooperative R&D programs between government-sponsored research institutes (GRIs) and private firms. A number affirms participated in the programs because cooperative R&D could lower the risk and could contribute to rapid commercialization of many technologies. In this article, Chulwon Lee, Zong-Tae Bae, and Jinjoo Lee examine the effectiveness of participant firms' strategies for commercial utilization of cooperative R&D results, from the viewpoint of technology sourcing at the project level. The data have been obtained from 162 cases of vertical cooperative R&D projects from a diverse group of industries in Korea. Three different commercialization strategies are empirically derived through cluster analysis of the relative usage rates of cooperative R&D and of other supplementary technology acquisition methods. They find that the effectiveness of these strategy clusters varies significantly according to the types of innovation, that is, project-business relatedness. If the project belongs to an existing business area, in-house development augmented cooperative R&D strategy is the most effective. On the other hand, licensing-in supplemented cooperative R&D strategy is the most successful, if the project belongs to a new business area. Findings suggest that firms participating in cooperative R&D projects should try to utilize other supplementary technology acquisition methods in order to achieve commercial utilization of cooperative R&D results.