Understanding the Antecedents,Contingencies, and Performance Implications of Process Innovation: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective

This paper examines one of the most important sources of competitiveness in dynamic industries—the capability of firms to introduce process innovations. While the management of product innovation has received considerable theoretical and empirical attention in the literature, our knowledge about how firms become process innovators—and why many firms fail to do so—remains underdeveloped. In order to provide novel insights into the configuration of firms' process innovation activities and their performance implications, this paper draws on the dynamic capabilities approach. More specifically, this study aims to shed light on the antecedents, contingencies, and performance consequences of interfirm differences in process innovation success, that is, firms' propensity and effectiveness of implementing new production, supply chain, or administrative processes. Particular emphasis is placed upon the analysis of potential complementarities or substitution effects between innovation activities such as internal and external research and development, prototyping, external knowledge acquisition, and employee training. Cross‐sectional data from a large‐scale survey of German manufacturing and service firms serves as the basis for testing the hypotheses advanced in this paper. Findings suggest that by engaging in a broad range of different innovation activities, firms can indeed increase the likelihood of achieving process innovation success, which is in turn positively related to firm financial performance. Yet decreasing marginal returns to innovation activities have to be considered as process innovation propensity was found to increase with the number of activities pursued simultaneously only up to a point, after which negative marginal returns set in (inverted U‐shaped relationship). Furthermore, while environmental turbulence was found to have surprisingly little influence when it comes to translating process innovation success into firms' subsequent financial performance, industry membership as well as the nature of the innovation process (i.e., internal generation, external adoption, or cocreation of an innovation) emerged as key contingency factors. These findings have important theoretical as well as practical implications for managing new process introductions.     

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.     

Standards,consortia, and innovation

The development of formal ICT standards is a challenging form of collaborative innovation, combining consensus decision making and R&D rivalry. To supplement this formal standard setting process, it has thus become frequent that part of the involved firms creates ad hoc consortia to better align positions on a common technology roadmap. This paper aims to assess whether such consortia can effectively mitigate R&D coordination failure through enhanced cooperation. We first develop a theoretical model showing that depending on the nature of firms' incentives to contribute proprietary technology, different types of R&D coordination failure – namely a Public Good or Rent Seeking problem – may occur in equilibrium. Using a large panel of standards, we then confirm empirically the prediction that consortia have different effects on innovation under a Public Good or Rent Seeking regime. Overall, we observe an increase in innovation after a firm joined a consortium. However, this effect is significantly weakened or even reversed for standards characterized by a strong Rent Seeking regime.     

Examining the new product innovation – performance relationship: Optimizing the role of individual-level creativity and attention-to-detail

New product innovation has been identified as the key to firms' marketplace success, profit and survival. Yet, the failure rate for new products is high. Because of the high costs associated with new product development, there is considerable theoretical and managerial interest in how to minimize the high failure rates of new products and what separates new product winners from losers. This study focuses on individual level ambidexterity – namely head of the R&D departments' capacity to engage in creativity and attention-to-detail simultaneously, a skill involving different centers of attention, and relying on somewhat incompatible behaviors and processes. The ability to engage in these behaviors simultaneously is seen as being ambidextrous. Drawing from the data of 150 advanced manufacturing firms in India (gathered from one CEO and one head of the R&D department for each firm), the results show that when an individual head of R&D engages heavily only in creativity, too many new, risky ideas may come and when he/she engages heavily only in attention-to-detail, he/she may suffer through a lack of novel ideas. Both approaches limit individual's contribution to enhancing product innovation – financial performance relationship. The results also show that an individual head of R&D needs to engage in high levels creativity and attention-to-detail in the pursuit of enhancing product innovation to achieve superior financial performance.     

How mergers affect innovation: Theory and evidence

This article analyses how horizontal mergers affect innovation of the merged entity and its non-merging competitors. Using data on horizontal mergers among pharmaceutical firms in Europe and applying propensity score matching estimators, we find that average patenting and R&D of the merged entity and its rivals declines substantially in post-merger periods. We show that this result is consistent with the predictions from an oligopoly model with heterogeneous firms, as well as a patent race model, when pre-merger R&D intensity is sufficiently high. Consistent with our theoretical model, we find that negative effects of mergers on innovation are concentrated in markets with high R&D intensity and in technology classes with overlap in pre-merger innovation activities of merging and rival firms.     

Sunk Costs,Extensive R&D Subsidies and Permanent Inducement Effects

Using firm‐level data on Spanish manufacturing firms we estimate a model of the firm's optimal R&D decisions (whether to perform R&D and how much to invest). We quantify the fixed (proper fixed costs plus firms' outside option) and sunk costs of R&D and find the former to be substantially higher than the latter. While sunk costs act as a barrier to entry into R&D for some firms, fixed costs are the binding obstacle for many more firms. Simulation based on the estimated model reveals that one‐shot trigger subsidies cause a substantial increase in both the share of R&D firms and average R&D expenditures. This effect shows persistence over time, but totally fades away after seven years as firms are gradually hit by negative R&D profitability shocks.     

Organizing for continuous technology acquisition: the role of R&D geographic dispersion

External technology acquisition has been proved to be an important strategy to enhance firms’ innovation performance. However, previous studies claim that companies acquiring technologies tend to not carry on with this strategy over time, thus limiting their attitude toward continuous technology acquisition. Moreover, the extant literature also highlights that this attitude is strongly influenced by their organizational structure. Therefore, in the present paper, we investigate the relationship between how firms organize R&D activities and continuous technology acquisition. Specifically, given the increasing globalization of technological development, we focus on the role of R&D geographic dispersion, and how its influence is moderated by firms’ technological diversification. We tested our hypotheses on longitudinal data of 303 biotechnology firms that acquired, at least, one USPTO patented technology over the period 1982–2012. Results reveal that R&D geographic dispersion is curvilinearly (inverted U-shaped) related to continuous technology acquisition, with negative returns occurring earlier in technology-diversified companies.     

The (Unknown) Providers to Other Firms' New Product Development: What's in It for Them?

For every inbound activity by a firm in open innovation, a reciprocal outbound activity by another firm must be generated. The reciprocal outbound activities range from transferring of knowledge and ideas to solutions delivered to other firms' new product development projects. This paper names the firms that produce the reciprocal outbound activity for “providers,” and is the first to empirically investigate such providers of ideas, solutions, and technologies for other firms' open innovation activities. The literature review shows a surprising shortage of research on who the providers are, how they engage with other firms, and not least what potential benefits can be achieved from supporting other firms' innovation activities. The paper uses a quantitative survey on Danish small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) carried out in 2010 to identify the providers, the role they take on, and the main benefits the providers gain. This paper finds that firms that are providers are indeed an under‐researched and important phenomenon for firms' innovation activities. Compared to receivers of knowledge, the providers are younger, have a higher R&D intensity, adopt more open innovation practices, have higher absorptive capacity, and fewer barriers toward knowledge sharing as demonstrated by the NIH and NSH syndromes. Finally, although only tentatively, the paper finds that the provider firms are more product innovative compared to nonproviders. The paper further finds that more projects, more embedded relationships, and mutual rather than one‐way exchange relationships significantly raise the probability that a firm experiences a substantial benefit from providing to other firms' new product development projects. The overall ambition of the paper at this point is to inspire other researchers to pursue the agenda on the provider perspective for future research. To support such research, the paper suggests a broadening of the research perspectives from the receiver of knowledge, in the literature on interorganizational relationships and open innovation, to include the provider, and even suggests some preliminary ideas for such research. Hence, the contribution of this paper lies not only in opening a new research topic but also in identifying some first characteristics of the phenomenon adding a substantial perspective to the literature on open innovation and interorganizational relationships. The paper formulates three indicative recommendations for managers that consider becoming a provider to other firms' NPD.     

Does R&D intensity promote the adoption of circular supply chain management? Evidence from China

This paper explores the relationship between research and development (R&D) intensity and circular supply chain management (CSCM) adoption of high-tech manufacturing companies in China to deepen our understanding of how to improve CSCM adoption in emerging economies. In particular, we examine the moderating effect of three kinds of institutional pressures (i.e., regulatory pressure from governmental regulations, mimetic pressure from industry competition, and normative pressure from overseas customer demand) from the perspective of institutional theory. Based on the panel data of 310 Chinese listed companies from 2006 to 2019, we find that R&D intensity positively affects firms’ CSCM adoption. We further observe that this positive effect is strengthened when the ratio of state-owned shares or the degree of industry competition is higher. However, overseas operating income does not affect the impact of R&D intensity on CSCM adoption. Our study contributes to the literature on the innovation – circular economy debate, confirming the positive effect of R&D intensity on firms' CSCM adoption, and provides insights into moderating effects on this relationship in an emerging economy context.     

Complementarity in product,process, and organizational innovation decisions: evidence from European firms

This work uses a sample of firm-level data from seven EU countries to explore the possible roles of simultaneity and heterogeneity in determining firms' decisions to engage in three types of innovation. Process, product, and organizational innovations are considered jointly, by applying a multivariate probit specification. The results support the hypothesis that the three innovation decisions are interdependent. This has straightforward implications for the practice of R&D managers. In order to gain advantages from an innovation, innovation managers need to jointly exploit these different types of innovation activities and their potential synergies. Given that the innovative firms in the sample, desire additional credit which actually they do not obtain, R&D managers should also be concerned with the financing sources firms have access to. Finally, from the analysis it also emerges that public support boost all the three forms of innovation.     

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.     

Experience matters: The role of academic scientist mobility for industrial innovation

Research Summary: A learning‐by‐hiring approach is used to scrutinize scientists' mobility in relation to the recruiting firms' subsequent innovation output. Our starting point is that among firm hires, individuals with university research experience—hired from universities or firms—can be particularly valuable. However, conflicting institutional logics between academia and industry makes working with academic scientists challenging at times for firms. We suggest two solutions to this difficulty: hiring “ambidextrous” individuals with a mix of experience of university research and working for a technologically advanced firm, and a strong organizational research culture in the recruiting firm reflected by the presence of a scientist on the top management team. We track the mobility of R&D workers empirically using patent and linked employer‐employee data. Managerial Summary: An important way to make organizations more innovative is hiring individual researchers with the right types of skills and experience. We show that individuals with university research experience beyond their final degree are particularly likely to help boost firm‐level innovation output after hiring compared to R&D workers with other types of skills and experience. However, to obtain good returns to innovation from hiring such individuals, firms need a university research–friendly organizational culture when hiring individuals with university research experience, from either firms or academia.     

The ineffectiveness of R&D subsidies—An oligopoly theoretic insight

In several European countries, governments subsidise private firms in their product development. Existing empirical literature indicates that these subsidies do not have much impact on firms' R&D efforts. It is suggested that this inefficiency may reflect strategic, oligopolistic behaviour: not to apply for subsidies is a strategic commitment to non-aggressive behaviour. Firms may be willing to apply for subsidies mainly when they know they are not going to affect their R&D efforts significantly.     

How does the partner type in R&D alliances impact technological innovation performance? A study on the Korean biotechnology industry

The number of strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry is sharply increasing. Some studies show that each alliance partner type has different alliance motives, resources and capabilities, organizational structures and cultures, and degrees of competition with partners, which can lead to different performances of strategic alliances. In this regard, this study conducts an empirical analysis of the different impact of each type of alliance partner on technological innovation performance and finds the moderating effect of absorptive capacity and potential competition by categorizing strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry into three types: vertical-downstream alliances, vertical-upstream alliances, and horizontal alliances. This study analyzed 206 Korean biotechnology firms and their strategic alliances for a total of 292 R&D activities. The results of the analysis showed that vertical alliances have a positive impact on technological innovation performance, while horizontal alliances have an inverted U-shaped relationship with technological innovation performance caused by the effect of competition. Additionally, it was confirmed that the R&D intensity of biotechnology firms has a moderating effect of increasing the impact of vertical-upstream alliances on technological innovation performance.     

Declared essential patents and average total R&D expenditures per patent family

The sharp increase in SEP declarations and declaring firms emphasizes the necessity for understanding firms’ innovation investment behavior in standardization. This paper empirically investigates whether declared standard-essential patents (SEPs) and the declaring firm’s business model (operationalized as a firm’s location in the value chain) are associated with a firm’s innovation investment behavior. To this end, we measure firms’ innovation investment behavior through average total research and development (R&D) expenditures per filed patent family for publicly listed firms from 1999 to 2018. Our sample mainly includes major SEP family declarants. We rely on a binary business model taxonomy differentiating upstream and downstream firms. Within that setting, total R&D expenditures rise with increasing fragmentation of declared SEP families, suggesting that firms adjust their R&D investments to declaration developments in standard-setting organizations (SSOs). We also show that upstream firms have significantly lower total R&D expenditures than downstream firms, which could indicate structural differences in their intellectual property (IP) and R&D management processes. Our results can help SSOs and regulators better understand firms’ innovation investment behavior.     

Cooperative R&D between vertically related firms with spillovers

This paper analyzes the effects of cooperative R&D in two vertically related duopolies, which are two final-good manufacturers and two input suppliers, with horizontal and vertical spillovers. Vertical R&D cartels yield a larger social welfare than non-cooperative R&D and, if the horizontal spillover rate between the input suppliers is not sufficiently high, than horizontal R&D cartels. Technological improvement is accelerated by forming vertical research joint ventures (RJVs), whether or not their member firms' R&D decisions are coordinated. Vertical RJV cartels yield the largest social welfare when the vertically related firms can coordinate their R&D decisions and/or share useful knowledge fully.     

Choosing the right target: Relative preferences for resource similarity and complementarity in acquisition choice

Research summary : Corporate acquisition is a popular strategic option for firms seeking new resources. However, little research exists on the question of why one firm is chosen over another. We develop a model relating characteristics of similarity and complementarity between acquirers' and target firms' key resources, including their products and R&D pipelines, to the likelihood of the acquirers choosing a particular firm. We construct measures of similarity and complementarity between and across products and R&D pipelines, and test their effects using a novel application of the choice model. Findings reveal that acquirers view similarity and complementarity differently, based on the resource they are comparing. When making comparisons to their own R&D pipelines, acquirers prefer similarity over complementarity whereas when making comparisons to their product portfolios, they prefer complementarity over similarity. Managerial summary : Corporate acquisition is a popular way for firms to grow and obtain innovative resources. However, we know little about why acquirers choose one firm over another. We capture the influence of similarity and complementarity between acquirers' and target firms' products (current innovative value) and R&D pipelines (future innovative value) on whether a particular target firm is acquired. Insights from the pharmaceutical industry reveal that acquirers value similarity and complementarity in target firms differently, based on whether the comparison being made is with respect to their products or their R&D pipelines. Regarding their R&D pipelines, acquirers prefer that the target firm has similar, rather than complementary, resources. However, the opposite is true concerning their own products: acquirers prefer that the target firm has complementary, versus similar, resources. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Complementary assets,start-ups and incentives to innovate

We examine to what extent market conditions facilitating start-up formation affect firms' R&D investment and profits. We consider a model in which R&D efforts of an incumbent firm generate partly tacit technological know-how embodied in a key R&D employee, who might use it to form a start-up. The availability of complementary assets influences whether new firms are created and determine expected profits for start-up's founders. A large availability of complementary assets has the direct effect that the generation of start-ups is fostered. However, as a strategic effect, the incentives of incumbents to invest in R&D may be reduced because of the increased danger of knowledge loss occurring through start-up formation. We characterize the effects of an increase in the availability of complementary assets, showing that counter-intuitively there are cases in which it induces an increase in incumbents' R&D investment.     

How do dynamic capabilities transform external technologies into firms’ renewed technological resources? – A mediation model

How externally acquired resources may become valuable, rare, hard-to-imitate, and non-substitute resource bundles through the development of dynamic capabilities? This study proposes and tests a mediation model of how firms’ internal technological diversification and R&D, as two distinctive microfoundations of dynamic technological capabilities, mediate the relationship between external technology breadth and firms’ technological innovation performance, based on the resource-based view and dynamic capability view. Using a sample of listed Chinese licensee firms, we find that firms must broadly explore external technologies to ignite the dynamism in internal technological diversity and in-house R&D, which play their crucial roles differently to transform and reconfigure firms’ technological resources.