Why and How Combining Strong and Weak Ties within a Single Interorganizational R&D Collaboration Outperforms Other Collaboration Structures

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate why and how an ambidextrous interorganizational R&D collaboration outperforms other collaboration structures in the creation of innovation. This research effort contributes to a growing stream of research in social network theory suggesting that the contradictory theories of the strength of weak ties and weak network structures on the one hand and the theory of strong ties and closed network structures on the other have a mutually reinforcing effect on innovation outcomes if combined rather than considered separately. An in‐depth exploratory single case study approach within an innovatively organized national R&D collaboration allowed giving further evidence for such a superior innovation performance and for this research to contribute to theory by demonstrating why and how such a combination may lead to higher innovation output and how this effect can be actively reinforced. It is suggested that the combination of strong and weak ties should occur at the individual rather than at the project or firm level. The authors distinguish between the additive effects of the respective innovation benefits of strong and weak ties, a positive interaction effect in the portfolio of dyadic ties of an individual and a second multilevel interaction effect of weak ties embedded in the ambidextrous network structure. Referring to previous empirical findings, intellectual property regulation and structural interdependency between network members showed a higher impact than trust with regard to leveraging weak ties and are important sources for achieving the multilevel interaction effect. Managerial implications of this research are that a large network will outperform several smaller, independent networks given that the right structure and processes are in place. Direct implications for the architecture of an ambidextrous R&D collaboration are discussed, and a framework for a new form of technology R&D collaboration called “semi‐open organization” is presented, which places itself between the extremes of traditional R&D in closed organizations and completely “open innovation” approaches.     

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.     

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.     

A shift to external alliances for product development in the pharmaceutical industry

For a number of years, pharmaceutical companies have been departing from a tradition of strict vertical integration, looking to external sources for at least some of their novel technology and products. The aim of this study was to determine whether (1) this is a long term, industry-wide trend, or (2) merely a temporary or local response to acquire the technical capabilities of the biotechnology revolution of the 1970's, after which, with the new generation of technology in-house, they will revert to primarily in-house innovation. Analysis of secondary data on a representative sample of the fifteen largest drug companies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Switzerland indicated that between 1977 and 1987, these pharmaceutical companies increased their external R&D alliances nearly six-fold on average. A large and growing proportion of pharmaceutical companies' R&D alliances are formed with biotechnology firms which have proprietary technology, due to financial and innovative pressures. Far from being temporary, this resort to external sources of technology in the pharmaceutical industry follows the trends of the wider industrial world towards functional specialization. Thus, biotechnology companies are increasingly taking on the role of suppliers of innovation.     

Antecedents of open innovation at the project level: empirical analysis of Korean firms

The concept of open innovation has recently gained wide academic attention, as it seems to have significant impact for company performance. Most empirical investigations about this emerging concept have been case studies of successful early adopters of open innovation, and their analyses have largely been at the company level. Although case studies at that level provide meaningful implications, the new phenomena merit a more in‐depth examination: that is, we need to collect and analyze data on multiple companies to explore more systematic findings about open innovations across companies. Moreover, analyses may need to go down to the individual project rather than the whole company level because innovation activities are often conducted as part of research and development (R&D) projects. To meet these needs, this study examines companies' open innovation efforts at the level of the individual R&D project. Specifically, the present study focuses on project‐level openness to better understand the mechanisms of open innovation. It explores systematic relationships between various antecedent factors and the degree of openness. Project‐level openness could be affected by team and task characteristics, such as team size, learning distance, strategic importance, technology and market uncertainty, and relevance to the main business. Relevant data collected from 303 companies in Korea were used to identify the antecedents that affect inbound and outbound openness. The research findings are expected to help provide a concrete theoretical framework suited for more generalized application and further practical development of open innovation strategy.     

Joining Forces or Going It Alone? On the Interplay among External Collaboration Partner Types,Interfirm Governance Modes,and Internal R&D

This paper adds to the emerging literature stream advocating a contingency view on open innovation. Drawing on the relational view of the firm, this study sheds light on the complex interplay among collaboration partner types (market‐ and science‐focused innovation partners), governance modes (informal, self‐enforcing and formal, contractual collaboration governance), and internal research and development(R&D). More specifically, it is proposed that the use of governance modes tailored to both the characteristics of each innovation partner type and the specific innovation objectives pursued by the focal firm (incremental and radical new product development) can increase the payoff from innovation collaboration. Moreover, appropriate collaboration governance is expected to reduce the focal firm's vulnerability to possible negative side effects often assumed to be associated with the simultaneous pursuit of external collaboration and internal R&D, among which most notably the not‐invented‐here (NIH) syndrome. Cross‐industry evidence from 2502 German firms underlines the critical role of collaboration governance—a contingency factor that is at the heart of the relational view, yet has remained surprisingly absent from the open innovation debate so far.     

Collaboration and technology linkages: a strategic supplier typology

This study uses frameworks from the strategic management and operations strategy literatures to explore the relationships among collaboration, technology, and innovation in small and medium‐sized manufacturers. Statistical analysis of the responses of 200 New Hampshire manufacturing companies in four SIC code industries (fabricated metals, industrial equipment, electrical and electronic equipment, and instruments) leads to the development of a strategic supplier typology which is useful in explaining the differences in the composition and performance of various types of suppliers. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Absorptive capacity and openness of small biopharmaceutical firms – a European Union–United States comparison

The complementarities between internal capabilities and external linkages have been widely acknowledged in the open innovation literature, yet little is known about the extent to which internal capabilities affect firms' openness within different institutional contexts. This paper therefore empirically explores the relationship between absorptive capacity (ACAP) and openness in the United States and European biopharmaceutical sectors. Based on analysis of data from a large‐scale international survey of 349 biopharmaceutical firms in the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, the results suggest that exploratory openness depends more strongly on the research and development (R&D) aspect of firms' potential absorptive capacity, whereas exploitative openness is more conditional on firms' realized absorptive capacity (RACAP). The results also highlight the major differences between firms' openness and ACAP in the United States and Europe – in the United States, firms' skill levels prove more significant in contributing to firms' engagement with exploratory relationships, whereas in Europe, continuity of R&D proves more important. Engagement with exploitative relationships, however, is more conditional on firms' RACAP in Europe only.     

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be too Much of a Good Thing?

R&D collaboration facilitates the pooling of complementary skills, learning from the partner as well as the sharing of risks and costs. Research therefore stresses the positive relationship between collaborative R&D and innovation performance. Fewer studies address the potential drawbacks of collaborative R&D. Collaborative R&D comes at the cost of coordination and monitoring, requires knowledge disclosure, and involves the risk of opportunistic behavior by the partners. Thus, while for lower collaboration intensities the net gains can be high, costs may start to outweigh benefits if firms perform a higher share of their innovation projects collaboratively. For a sample of 2735 firms located in Germany and active in a broad range of manufacturing and service sectors, this study finds that increasing the share of collaborative R&D projects in total R&D projects is associated with a higher probability of product innovation and with a higher market success of new products. While this confirms previous findings on the gains for innovation performance, the results also show that collaboration has decreasing and even negative returns on product innovation if its intensity increases above a certain threshold. Thus, the relationship between collaboration intensity and innovation follows an inverted‐U shape and, on average, costs start to outweigh benefits if a firm pursues more than about two‐thirds of its R&D projects in collaboration. This result is robust to conditioning market success to the introduction of new products and to accounting for the selection into collaborating. This threshold is, however, contingent on firm characteristics. Smaller and younger as well as resource‐constrained firms benefit from relatively higher collaboration intensities. For firms with higher collaboration complexities in terms of different partners and different stages of the R&D process at which collaboration takes place, returns start to decrease already at lower collaboration intensities.     

Development of Novel Products Through Intraorganizational and Interorganizational Networks

The pendulum appears to be swinging away from the merger mania of the 1980s, with many leaner-and meaner organizations refocusing on their core competencies. However, these more focused organizations often lack the breadth of skills and expertise necessary for developing products and services which cut across traditional technological and marketing boundaries. Complex product systems such as those under development in the home automation industry include elements from such disparate sectors as consumer electronics, telecommunications, construction, and energy. A narrow focus may prevent the novel forms of innovation necessary for successful development of such products. Using the home automation industry as an example, Joe Tidd examines the challenges involved in the development of complex product systems. When products and services cut across traditional marketing and technological boundaries, radical innovation is difficult because different firms and industries are typically responsible for developing the various subsystems and components. Successful development efforts may require novel forms of innovation–for example, architectural innovation and technology fusion. Architectural innovation involves changes in the way the components of a product are linked together, but leaves the core design concepts untouched. Technology fusion creates new products and market opportunities through the blending of diverse technologies from various fields. Two organizational factors affect a firm's ability to develop and commercialize new products based on novel forms of innovation: the internal organization of the firm, and the firm's links with other organizations, including suppliers, customers, and networks of collaborating organizations. Within a firm, the development of complex product systems is likely to require managing across traditional product-division boundaries. The breadth of competencies required may necessitate strong interfirm linkages. Comparing organizational approaches and the networks of alliances for home automation in the United States, Europe, and Japan, it appears that European firms tend to be more narrowly focused then American and Japanese firms. A rigid focus on core competencies may cause these European firms to overlook the potential for new products. Because various technologies and industries are involved, open networks are more effective than closed networks or alliances. European and American firms tend to favor closed strategic alliances, while Japanese firms typically participate in open networks and overlapping consortia. This approach gives Japanese firms an edge in the home automation industry.     

Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining environmental influences

Firms may open up their innovation processes on two dimensions. While inbound open innovation refers to the acquisition of external technology in open exploration processes, outbound open innovation describes the outward transfer of technology in open exploitation processes. Prior open innovation research has focused on the inbound dimension, whereas the outbound dimension has been relatively neglected. Therefore, this article addresses the relationship between outbound open R&D strategies and firm performance. We use data from 136 industrial firms to test four hypotheses on the moderating effects of environmental factors in the relationship between open innovation strategies and firm performance. The results show that the degree of technological turbulence, the transaction rate in technology markets, and the competitive intensity in technology markets strengthen the positive effects of outbound open innovation on firm performance. By contrast, the degree of patent protection does not facilitate successful open innovation. The results are crucially important to managers because they show under what environmental conditions open innovation strategies enhance performance.     

Radical innovation in a small firm: a hybrid electric vehicle development project at Volvo Cars

The potential paradigmatic shift in technology from the internal combustion engine to electric propulsion via hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) has been addressed by most automakers, and has produced very different outcomes. This paper uses the framework of core capabilities to discuss how the small automaker, Volvo Cars, made substantial progress in its HEV development using an approach based on limited resources and a low risk. A comparison with Toyota's successful but very resource‐demanding Prius project reveals some factors contributing towards rapid development in a context of limited resources, including focused project objectives, tight collaboration with suppliers of the new technologies, reuse of existing technologies and an unaggressive, bottom‐up approach to change the firm's values and norms and other core capability dimensions. This paper provides an empirical illustration of how a small company in a mature industry worked with radical innovation in a development project drawing on the combination of organizational slack, entrepreneurial employees and an extensive use of external (knowledge) suppliers.     

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.     

Inventive efficiency: How the U.S. compares with Japan

This study argues that inventive (R&D) efficiency may be an important factor in the competition for global market shares and goods and services. The authors compare R&D efficiency for 14 industrial groups in the United States and Japan using multiple indices of inventive efficiency. Findings show interesting differences in inventive efficiency across industrial groups and between the United States and Japan. United States food, textile, chemical, rubber, metals, fabricated metals, and other miscellaneous manufacturing industries appear to be relatively more efficient in inventive efficiency than their Japanese counterparts. In contrast, Japanese paper, petroleum, machinery, and scientific equipment industries display greater inventive efficiency than their United States counterparts. The electrical equipment, transportation, and stone industries in the two countries appear to be equally efficient. The implications of these differences are discussed.     

Downstream Vertical Foreclosure and Upstream Innovation

I examine a link between downstream foreclosure and upstream innovation. The crucial ingredient of the model is the presence of dynamic economies of scale upstream in the form of competition in R&D. The reason an upstream supplier has a captive buyer is to force rival suppliers to incur the disadvantages of low-scale production and discourage them from innovating. The downstream buyer is offered favorable terms and is “convinced” to sign an exclusive supply contract and accept captivity. In this context, downstream foreclosure may reduce consumer welfare.     

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.     

Non‐R&D innovation and firms’ new product performance: the joint moderating effect of R&D intensity and network embeddedness

Non‐R&D innovation increasingly plays a critical role in explaining firms’ new product performance. Yet, there has been little research on the consequences and contingent mechanisms of non‐R&D innovation for firms embedded in collaborative network environments. To address this research gap, we investigated a conceptual framework of non‐R&D innovation using data drawn from Chinese manufacturing firms. First, we found that non‐R&D innovation positively affects firms’ new product performance. Second, we discovered that high R&D intensity positively strengthens the impact of firms’ non‐R&D innovation on new product performance. Third, we provided critical analysis of the role of non‐R&D innovation in promoting new product performance, accomplished by enhancing R&D investment while simultaneously improving the degree of network embeddedness. Our findings extend both the non‐R&D innovation literature and open innovation literature while providing managers with several key recommendations.     

University‐industry collaboration and front‐end success: the moderating effects of innovativeness and parallel cross‐firm collaboration

Collaboration with science‐based and/or market‐based partners is a promising means for firms’ R&D groups to leverage complementary expertise and resources to generate innovative results. However, R&D managers face the dilemma which partner type to choose in different innovative contexts and whether to focus on one partner type or to integrate both types in early stage R&D. Using survey data from 166 heads of R&D groups, this study investigates university–industry collaboration’s impact on front‐end success depending on the degree of innovativeness and the interaction with other industry partners. The results confirm an overall positive relationship between university–industry collaboration and front‐end success. However, innovativeness increases complexity in this relationship. Parallel collaboration with firms and universities can have a mixed impact on front‐end success depending on the degree of innovativeness. This simultaneous collaboration with firms and universities strengthens front‐end success for more radical innovations, while parallel collaboration activities for more incremental innovations do not necessarily strengthen front‐end success. These findings imply that both collaboration types should be used simultaneously in the front end of radical innovation and that firms could reduce complexity by focusing on either firms or universities as partners for incremental innovations.     

Organizing for Inbound Open Innovation: How External Consultants and a Dedicated R&D Unit Influence Product Innovation Performance

Firms increasingly acquire technological knowledge from external sources to improve their innovation performance. This strategic approach is known as inbound open innovation. The existing empirical evidence regarding the impact of inbound open innovation on performance, however, is ambiguous. The equivocal results are due to moderating factors that influence a firm's ability to acquire technological knowledge from external sources and to transform it into innovation outputs. This paper focuses on a relevant yet overlooked category of moderating factors: organization of research and development (R&D). It explores two organizational mechanisms: one informal and external‐oriented (involvement of external consultants in R&D activities) and one formalized and internal‐oriented (existence of a dedicated R&D unit), in the acquisition of technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing, a particular contractual form for inbound open innovation. Drawing on a capabilities perspective and using a longitudinal dataset of 841 Spanish manufacturing firms observed over the period 1999–2007, this paper provides a fine‐grained analysis of the moderating effects of the two organizational mechanisms. The involvement of external consultants in R&D activities strengthens the impact of inbound open innovation on innovation performance by increasing marginal benefits of acquiring external technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing. Moreover, it reduces the level of inbound open innovation to which the highest innovation performance corresponds. Instead, the existence of a dedicated R&D unit makes the firm less sensitive to changes in the level of inbound open innovation, by reducing marginal benefits of acquiring external technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing, and increases the level of inbound open innovation to which the highest innovation performance corresponds. The results regarding the role of informal and formalized R&D organizational mechanisms contribute to research on open innovation and absorptive capacity, and also inform managers as to what organizational mechanism is recommended to acquire external technological knowledge, depending on the objectives that the firm pursues.