A model of value assessment in collaborative R&D programs

This study examines the tasks, processes, and frameworks central to performance assessment in collaborative research organizations. The domain of the study is the partnered learning approach to research and development (R&D) management. The empirical results highlight relationships between context (center scale) and performance (value perceived by industry sponsors) in such R&D collaborations. Insights from this research are broadly applicable to the maintenance of alliances among firms involved in collaborative R&D and are generalizable to that context. Data gathered from a national population of 58 National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored centers over a 3-year period reveal significant evolutionary patterns in the development of collaborative relationships. Successful industry university consortia leverage four core process relationships: (1) the creation of research capacity yielding advances in process and product knowledge; (2) technology transfer behaviors within the participants' organizations; (3) participant satisfaction with the outcomes; and (4) the continuity of industry sponsor support, i.e., commitment to the collaboration.     

Economic compensation compositions preferred by R&D personnel of different R&D types and intrinsic values

In order to enhance R&D performance, R&D managers make sure that R&D personnel are satisfied with their compensation, both economic and non–economic . An R&D compensation scheme would consist of many complex factors. In this research, we focus on 'compensation composition' as such a factor for the economic compensation system, i.e., the mix of compensation components such as team (or organization) performance based, individual (R&D personnel) performance based, and fixed (seniority based) portion of economic compensation. As part of non–economic compensation, intrinsic values such as social status and self–actualization perceived by the R&D personnel are influencing their level of satisfaction with the entire compensation system. Another critical factor we consider here is the difference in R&D types: there are three R&D types, i.e., basic, applied , and commercial R&D . We put forth two sets of propositions. First, there is statistically significant correlation among R&D personnel's job satisfaction, performance measurement satisfaction, and compensation satisfaction. Second, depending on the types of their R&D activities, R&D personnel prefer a certain composition of economic compensation. In addition, the relationships are mediated by whether the R&D personnel feel intrinsic values of their jobs.     

Managing innovative R&D teams

Successful R&D groups not only generate innovative ideas, but also transfers these newly created concepts through the organizational system for economic gain. While innovation is not a random process, managers often argue that R&D performance is hard to measure and even more difficult to manage. An exploratory field study into technology-oriented R&D environments determines the principle factors that influence innovation-based performance of R&D teams. The results identify specific barriers and drivers to innovative team performance and provide insight into the type of an organizational environment and managerial leadership that is conducive to innovative R&D team performance. The data further suggest that many of the performance variables have their locus outside the R&D organization. Yet, managerial leadership style, both at the R&D team level and at senior management, has significant impact on creativity that ultimately affects R&D performance.     

The allocation of R&D resource

Abstract
The allocation of R&D resource in a multi-business organisation is often based more on current operating performance than on the relative potential for technological development of the businesses. The approach suggested in this paper attempts to overcome these problems by linking R&D allocation very closely to business strategy. The two key concepts are technology leverage, i.e. the extent to which technology can change the business environment in an industry to yield competitive advantage, and business leverage i.e. the current competitive strength of an individual business within an industry. Where technology leverage is weak, competitive advantage will be mainly dependent on factors other than R&D and it is suggested that levels of R&D effort at or below 1 % of turnover are appropriate. Where technology leverage is strong, R&D can be effective in maintaining strong business leverage by achieving technology mastery or in transforming a weak business position by creating a technological discontinuity. R&D intensities ranging from 3 to 15 or more % of turnover are thought to be appropriate in these cases. This framework can be used for policy debates on R&D allocation, for example whether the R&D allocation is appropriate for the business strategy or whether R&D could spearhead a more expansionist business strategy. The framework has been successfully used in ICI Chemicals and Polymers Limited during the annual R&D budget process.     

A basic model for evaluating R&D performance: theory and application in Italy

Nowadays the public R&D laboratories have a fundamental role in countries' development, supporting businesses as they face the technological challenges in the turbulent world scenarios. Measuring the performance of R&D organisations is crucially important to decisions about the level and direction of public funding for research and development. This research considers the public laboratories like systems and develops a mathematical model based on the measurement of R&D activities with k‐indices. The score obtained from the research laboratories evaluation (relev) methodology synthesises in single value financial, scientific and technological aspects. It is an indicator, for R&D manager and policy maker, of performance in relation to other research organisations or in a time series. The method is an instrument of strategic planning and can be used for the improvement of individual activities and the overall performance of public R&D bodies.     

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.     

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.     

Does business group affiliation encourage R&D activities? Evidence from India

The decision to undertake investment in innovative activities is an important strategic choice made by firms. This study investigates the relationship between business group (BG) affiliation and research & development (R&D) activities of Indian firms. Using an empirical approach that accounts for endogeneity and selection bias, we observe that BG affiliation has significant positive influence on the sample firms’ R&D activities. Employing various proxies for institutional development, we show that the effect of BG affiliation on R&D declines with the improvements in institutional and regulatory mechanisms. Further, this study explores the linkages between diversification strategies at the group level and R&D investments by firms affiliated with BGs. Results show that degree of related diversification is positively associated with the affiliates’ innovation efforts.     

Network positioning and R&D activity: a study of Italian groups

Traditionally, R&D studies focus on organisational characteristics and internal context factor effects on a firm's R&D activities. This paper extends previous research by analysing firm–level R&D expenditures in the wider context of inter–organisational networks. Using sample of 2002 manufacturing firms in Italy, it provides evidence that R&D intensity is linked to a firm's positioning within an industrial group's hierarchy. Further tests on the antecedents of R&D expenditures are carried out in relation to the effects of firm characteristics and industry factors. Important findings include a significant and positive association between R&D intensity and the firm's size, performance, intangible assets and industry concentration. These findings suggest that, in addition to firm–level factors and its market environment, network resources and organisation may play an important role in driving the intensity of the firm's R&D expenditures.     

Clustering and the R&D management of high-technology small firms: in theory and practice

Much of the policy assistance for high-technology small firms (HTSFs) over recent years has been directed at encouraging their research and development (R&D) collaboration through local networking and technology transfer. Following a consideration of why HTSFs are formed, and how they perform R&D in order to cope with the competitive environment, this paper explores the value of external collaborative R&D to internal R&D management, inside geographically concentrated incubators, science parks or clusters. It is concluded that, although R&D collaboration with external partners occurs in limited instances, much HTSF R&D is highly confidential, competitive and wholly internalised. This tendency, as far as it relates to R&D management, is significant in that it minimises the likelihood that local management collaboration between co-located firms will improve the performance of R&D projects.     

The importance of internal and external R&D network linkages for R&D organisations: evidence from Singapore

This paper examines the importance of internal and external R&D networks for R&D organisations of multinational firms (MNCs) in Singapore and investigates corresponding R&D management requirements in this context, namely a late-industrialising country in Asia. A unique feature of Singapore is its ability to attract 'high quality' foreign direct investment, involving activities of higher value added and more complex technology without having developed full-fledged R&D activities among its business organisations, thus creating a challenging situation for subsidiary R&D managers, both in the internal R&D organisation as well as in the external research environment. This paper analyses these issues.
Based on in-depth interviews with 53 R&D subsidiaries of MNCs operating in Singapore, this paper identifies internal and external R&D management needs. Through our analysis of data gleaned from these interviews, we found that subsidiary R&D managers need to increase and/or maintain the strategic importance of their R&D site internally within their global corporate R&D organisation. This requires constant upgrading of the technological level at the R&D subsidiary and intense communication with headquarters as well as other R&D subsidiaries. Furthermore, our findings indicate that in the external research environment, subsidiary R&D managers need to create an efficient local network of external players. If these internal and external issues are properly addressed, the R&D subsidiary can effectively contribute to the corporate R&D organisation and be a critical partner in the local research network. Lessons learned from the Singapore experience include the need to develop sufficient local expertise as well as to change the mindset of managers to focus on creativity rather than precise execution.     

Managing foreign R&D laboratories in China

This paper focuses on the management of R&D units established by foreign companies in China, investigating R&D missions, site build-up, integration with the parent organization, and overall performance measurement. The research is based on 37 qualitative expert interviews with local R&D directors and managers conducted between 2001 and 2004, using a semi-structured research questionnaire, and semi-quantitative research done on 199 foreign R&D labs in China. Cultural influences on R&D management, location advantages, expatriate involvement, and organizational evolution of local laboratories are discussed. We find that foreign R&D laboratories in China are not only important vehicles for local market development but also increasingly important sources of locally developed technology.     

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.     

Technology analysis and R&D management

Technology analysis is a new field of knowledge aimed at creating a fuller understanding of the technological setting within which business operates. It provides a macro-discipline and is specifically aimed at improving the effectiveness of management of technology. As such it is of direct relevance to R&D management.
The essential tools of technology analysis constitute a set of analytical frameworks covering aspects such as: (i) a common approach to describing individual technological artefacts, (ii) a taxonomy of technologies, (iii) a classification of technological trends, (iv) a chart of technological limits, and (v) a socio-technical preference profile.
These frameworks help the R&D manager to dissect and debate typical R&D management problems such as: (i) selecting R&D projects, (ii) setting broad R&D objectives in the case of a given project and (iii) setting specific R&D goals to meet the said objectives. The frameworks also help the R&D manager to portray and present research achievements within a simple and intuitively appealing framework.     

Collaboration in R&D with universities and research centres: an empirical study of Spanish firms

Innovation is sometimes the result of collaboration between different agents with complementary resources. When companies make formal agreements to collaborate in R&D they do so with different types of organizations, such as their competitors, suppliers, and customers, or universities and research centres. This paper focuses on attempting to understand the reasons that lead companies to cooperate with universities and research centres and the characteristics of the relationship that this involves. The empirical study is based on a sample of 747 Spanish firms that took part in some type of collaborative R&D project between 1994 and 1996. Results indicate that cooperation with centres is a nation–wide phenomenon involving basic research, conducted under the sponsorship of different research support schemes promoted by central and regional administrations.     

Divining directions for development: a cooperative industry–government–public sector research approach to establishing R&D priorities

This paper discusses the limitations of many fiscal and related methods of encouraging increases in R&D as a tool for establishing research priorities. It suggests that any 'national' rather than industry–specific approach is likely to be ineffective in stimulating the R&D needed for the development of all industries. This is particularly the case in countries such as Australia and New Zealand where many decisions about R&D investments are made overseas, in the headquarters of the multinational firms that dominate most sectors of the economy. Instead, the paper suggests that an industry development approach currently being used in Australia, the Action Agenda approach, be modified to include a broader range of players, notably the public sector R&D community and an industry's 'users', to think about and establish R&D priorities which will underpin progress in the industry as a whole rather than being restricted to individual firms. The proposal rests on the results of AEGIS empirical research (surveys and interviews) into the dynamics of innovation in different 'product systems' (broader than sectors) in Australia which indicates the broad range of players that need to be included both in the analysis of innovation and in policies for stimulating the research which can assist innovation.     

The effects of privatization on corporate R&D units: evidence from Italy and France

Over the last two decades privatization programmes in a variety of different countries have radically reduced the role of the state as a major owner of productive assets. While there is empirical evidence to show that the switch in ownership generally improves productive efficiency and profitability at company level, its effects on research and development (R&D) activities, which can impact strongly on long–term performance, have been largely ignored in the literature.
In this paper we address this issue by analyzing seven cases of privatization that have recently occurred in Italy and France in order to gauge how R&D activities may be affected by privatization in terms of objectives and organization. The organizations studied show that R&D units within privatized companies are subject to profound restructuring actions, generally designed to boost efficiency and to strengthen integration with the goals of the business units and of the final customers. A new role for R&D thus emerges: the aim is no longer to generate new knowledge in the broad national interest, but rather more directly to create value for the company and its clients, by emphasizing the assessment and integration of external knowledge.     

R&D: Its Relationship to Company Performance

Decisions made by management today on investment in research and development can influence the viability and growth of a corporation into the 21st century. Graham Morbey reports on results of this study of R&D spending of major US companies for the ten-year period 1976 to 1985, including possibly controversial inferences concerning the relationship between R&D and company performance. He finds a strong association between R&D spending and subsequent growth in sales. However, he detects a threshold R&D funding level which must be exceeded if R&D is to contribute to future sales growth. The study shows little correlation between R&D intensity and growth in profitability. Also, it is apparent that sales growth and increasing profitability do not lead to increased allocations for R&D in most industries.     

An examination of the relationships between leadership style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R&D versus administrative environments

Academics and executives argue that effective leadership is a key predictor of R&D success as well as quality management. Recent research highlights transformational leadership as a highly effective style shown to predict performance in organizations. However, no study examined the role of transformational and transactional leadership in building quality climate in R&D versus non-R&D settings. We examined the relationship between leadership style and the establishment of a quality environment in an R&D setting based on an empirical study of 511 research engineers and scientists. It is found that both transformational leadership and transactional contingent-reward leadership are related to the establishment of a quality environment in the R&D part of a telecommunications firm. However, the impact of transactional contingent-reward leadership ceases to be significant once both leadership styles are considered simultaneously using structural equations. A transformational leadership style was also found to be related to employee satisfaction.