Scale and performance in publicly funded collaborative research and development

This paper reports the results of an extensive empirical investigation on the role of project scale (reflected in consortium size and in project budget) on various performance dimensions of publicly funded collaborative research and development (R&D) projects. Recent trends in European research policy are founded on the premise that such scale economies do exist, hence the emphasis placed on the critical mass of R&D projects. We argue that large scale in collaborative R&D confers both positive and negative effects, and thus we hypothesize an inverse U‐shaped relation between scale and performance. We only find an inverse U‐shaped effect of consortium size on networking impacts and a U‐shaped effect of project budget on goal achievement. No other statistically significant relationships were found for the remaining performance dimensions (i.e. scientific outputs, technological outputs, and research capacity impacts). More generally, and consistent with recent work on the relation between quality and quantity in academic research, our analyses offer little evidence to support the idea that increasing scale generally improves collaborative R&D performance. It appears that the simple assumption ‘bigger is better’ in European Union‐financed collaborative R&D may need to be reconsidered.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 roles of R&D team leaders in Korea: a contingent approach

This study empirically examines the relationship between the role of R&D project leaders and their team performance using data from 87 project teams in 6 R&D organizations in Korea. The results reveal that:
(1) R&D project leaders played five different roles in performing their jobs – strategic planner, team builder, gatekeeper, technical expert, and champion;
(2) All but the champion role of a leader is positively related with project team performance;
(3) However, this relationship between the role of leader and project team performance varies according to the characteristics of R&D project teams and their tasks.
Specifically, it becomes important for a leader to focus less on the team building role as the team gets older. The team building role of a leader, however, is more important for higher performance of relatively certain R&D projects, while for uncertain R&D projects, the strategic planning role appears to be more crucial. Based on these results, this study discusses several managerial and theoretical issues related to the role of a leader in R&D project teams.     

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.     

Career orientations of R&D professionals in Korea

This study empirically examined the relationships between career orientations of R&D professionals in Korea and other personal characteristics such as demographic factors, work-related outcomes, and reward preferences. The results, based on the survey about 1,240 technical people in 15 R&D organizations, revealed five distinctive and independent career orientations: technical, manager, project, technical transfer, and entrepreneurial orientations. The career orientations of R&D professionals are found to be different between private and public sectors and to be associated with their education level and organizational tenure. It is also observed that R&D professionals with different career orientations exhibit different work-related outcomes and reward preferences. For instance, technical-oriented professionals tend to be more educated, to exhibit better job attitudes and technical performances, and to favor professional rewards. While those with manager and transfer orientations are longer-tenured, have more positive job attitudes but lower technical performances, and prefer social status and prestige and career rewards in their organization. Both project- and entrepreneur-oriented professionals exhibit a less positive attitude toward their organizations, but seek different reward schemes: the former pursues challenging R&D projects with autonomy and the latter favors financial returns. Finally, the implications of these findings for managing careers of R&D professionals are discussed.     

The path of R&D efficiency over time

In this paper we investigate the pattern of R&D efficiency in terms of the number of product innovations achieved by firms over time. Using a panel dataset of Spanish manufacturing firms for the period 1990–2006, we follow the innovative performance of R&D active firms and observe that innovation rates change over firms' R&D histories. To explain these facts we propose a model that explicitly acknowledges the twofold composition of firms' R&D expenditures, comprising spending on both physical capital for R&D projects and payments to researchers. We regard this latter component of R&D as a source for dynamic returns to firms' R&D investments. Consequently firms' innovation outcomes clearly depend on how long they have been investing in R&D and also on whether there have been any interruptions in the temporal sequence of R&D activities. Our results suggest that R&D activities exhibit dynamic returns that are positive but at a decreasing rate, and that interruptions in R&D engagement reduce R&D efficiency.     

Integrating the R&D and Patent Functions: Implications for New Product Performance

This paper examines the impact of cross‐functional integration between the research and development (R&D) and the patent functions on new product development (NPD) performance. The attitudinal (collaboration) and the behavioral (contributions of the patent function to NPD) dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions are distinguished. It is also investigated if the level of innovativeness moderates the relationship between the attitudinal and the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. The four hypotheses are tested based on a multi‐informant sample of 101 NPD projects which are nested within 72 technology‐based firms or strategic business units from multiple industries in Germany. The results show that the attitudinal and the behavioral dimensions of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions have a significant and positive impact on NPD performance. This lends empirical support for the notion expressed in the literature that certain managerial capabilities are important for understanding the effect of patenting on appropriability outcomes such as value creation and performance. The level of cross‐functional integration between the patent and the R&D functions appears to be one of these critical patent management capabilities that affect the returns from investments into patents. There is support for the hypothesis that the context matters for the effect of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions on NPD performance. In line with the initial hypothesis, the level of innovativeness positively moderates the impact of the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department on NPD performance. In contrast to the initial hypothesis, the findings reveal no moderating effect of the level of innovativeness on the link between the attitudinal dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. This implies that joint objectives and an open and trustful working relationship between the R&D and the patent functions are not sufficient for achieving higher NPD performance if firms aim to develop very innovative products. In the case of highly innovative products, the actual behavior, that is, the specific contributions of the patent department to the NPD project, matters. Overall, these findings have important implications for improving performance by means of effectively integrating the patent and the R&D functions during NPD.     

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.     

Those Who Know,Do. Those Who Understand,Teach. Disseminative Capability and Knowledge Transfer in the Automotive Industry

Innovations in the automotive industry are increasingly building on contributions from different technological fields. Correspondingly, firms in this industry more than ever tend to form research and development (R&D) alliances that aim at innovating new products through integrating separate fields and transferring knowledge. While, in symmetrical R&D alliances, each partner intends to ultimately maintain their distinctive and specialized knowledge base, overlapping knowledge facilitates cooperation and ultimately alliance success. Thus, the capability for knowledge transfer between partners is crucial in such R&D alliances. The literature provides ample evidence that such knowledge transfer is more likely to succeed if the recipient firm has absorptive capability. However, whereas the characteristics of the knowledge transfer process and the recipient firm are well understood, limited attention has so far been given to the issue of the knowledge source firm's ability to transfer knowledge to R&D alliance partners. This study focuses on the impact of source firm capability on successful knowledge transfer in R&D alliances. The study develops a theoretical framework of disseminative capability consisting of five dimensions and tests it on a sample of 59 projects in R&D alliances in the automotive industry. To ensure content validity and avoid common source bias, data were collected from both alliance partners. To test the hypotheses, multiple regression analyses were performed. The results reveal that the source firm's disseminative capability including the attainment of expert knowledge, assessing the recipient firm's knowledge base, and encoding knowledge are positively related to knowledge transfer success, while, surprisingly, detaching knowledge and support of knowledge application in the recipient firm are negatively related. Intentionally or unintentionally, disseminating knowledge across firm boundaries is widely perceived as detrimental to a firm's competitive advantage. Accordingly, the literature tends to downplay disseminative capability as an important means of exploiting external knowledge in collaborative settings. By demonstrating potential benefits for the source firm to transfer knowledge to the allying R&D partner firm, this paper reinvigorates the collaborative dimension in knowledge transfer. Further, the paper is the first of this kind to theoretically explain and empirically show that dimensions of disseminative capability of collaborators in R&D alliances are important for knowledge transfer, whereas disseminative capability is the complementary inverse of an organization's absorptive capacity.     

How well did the new Sumitomo Electric project ranking method predict performance?

The development and implementation of a new R&D project scoring method (NS-method) within Sumitomo Electric Industries was introduced in a previous report. This paper evaluates the NS-method's effectiveness by comparing the information generated by application to 146 projects in 1997 with the project achievements in 2000. The test results revealed that the NS-method's evaluation scores were correlated to the performance indicators such as the gross profit and R&D productivity. It also showed that, when projects are classified into three groups (i.e., Top, Middle, Bottom) according to the forecast data generated by the NS-method, the projects in the Top category had higher actual productivity ratios and success rates than those in the Bottom category.     

Partner technological heterogeneity and innovation performance of R&D alliances

This study investigates the impacts of partner technology heterogeneity on innovation performance of alliance firms both in terms of R&D output and the enhancement of partners’ innovation capability. We apply a generalized semi-parametric model on a questionnaire survey result of 413 High and New Technology Enterprises in China. In order to ensure the robustness and practicability of our result, PCA is applied to extract comprehensive information and SiZer analysis is employed to test the linearity and significance of the nonparametric functions in the model. Our results indicate that collaborations between partners with different industry technologies exert inversed U-shaped R&D output pattern and affect very little the innovation ability of focal firms. The impact of industry domain divergence is no longer significant when partner technology heterogeneity is added in the model of analysis. Partner technology heterogeneity leads to an ascending S-shaped R&D output pattern and contributes positively to innovation capabilities. One of the implications of our findings is that when choosing R&D alliance partners, firms are better off avoiding candidates from a different industry domain but opt for potential collaborators who are in the same industry but in the different technical domain, which may facilitate more effective organizational learning. Further, we argue that the reasons behind the S-shaped R&D output pattern led by technology heterogeneity being the co-existence of competition and cooperation between partners where firms collaborate in value-creation by combining diverse resources and compete for acquiring partner’s distinct technology and resources. Therefore, we suggest that, for the sustainability of collaborative innovation outcome, both cooperation and competition amongst alliance partners should be encouraged and well balanced at different stages of joint R&D projects.     

International R&D project evaluation by multinational corporations in the electronics and IT industry of Singapore

This paper explores a number of variables associated with the evaluation of international R&D projects by multinational corporations (MNCs) in the electronics and IT industry of Singapore. Empirical analysis of the data collected from R&D managerial executives suggests a series of considerations in relation to their R&D investments. It is desirable if R&D can create a potential impact on the growth of their regional and international businesses. In considering the risks associated with an R&D project, a balance approach would be appropriate when demanding a return on investment. In particular, the consistence with customer demands, the achievement of time‐based competitiveness, the training of R&D manpower and the development of conducive innovation environments are fundamental to the success of international R&D projects.     

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.     

Age structure shifts in Research & Development (R&D): Some statistical evidence and an integrative approach to link behavioural aspects of individual and group age in collaborative R&D

Since empirical material concerning the age structure of industrial R&D organizations is scarce an attempt is made to present some statistical evidence in support of the wide-spread notion of a shift toward a higher median age in R&D laboratories during the past years. Then, on an individual level of analysis the results of an extensive review of existing empirical research on the covariation of individual age and scientific performance are summarized in brief. On a group level of analysis research relating age of collaborative R&D groups (i.e., average length of time group members had worked together in a particular group) to group performance is discussed. To integrate the contradictory findings of prior research two analytic concepts are introduced, namely the discrimination of different situations of collaboration and the identification of two basic functions of interactions in collaborative R&D. Based upon these concepts an integrative approach to account for time-related performance patterns on an individual and group level of analysis is laid out. Finally, possibilities of a diagnostic application of the suggested concepts are indicated.     

Governance of supplier collaboration in technologically uncertain NPD projects

Firms that are searching for new technologies from suppliers through collaborative new product development (NPD) need to devise effective approaches for governing the supplier relationship. Based on in-depth case studies of four collaborative NPD projects, this paper shows that in projects with a high degree of uncertainty (1) firms achieve governance by simultaneously limiting supplier involvement and allowing for high levels of collaboration, (2) transactional and relational governance have distinct roles in achieving limited supplier involvement and establishing high levels of collaboration, and (3) transactional and relational governance are organizationally separated. These findings have implications for the complementary use of relational and transactional governance, as well as for the role of purchasing and R&D in technologically uncertain NPD projects.     

Cross‐cutting organizational and demographic divides and the performance of research and development teams: two wrongs can make a right

In interorganizational research and development (R&D) teams, diverse skills and insights may be combined productively, but the team members' differing organizational backgrounds may also inhibit team performance. In this paper, it is argued that interorganizational R&D teams are more likely to perform with a certain demographic composition. In particular, the problems of an organizational divide can be overcome by a second, demographic divide that cuts across organizational boundaries. With a cross‐cutting demographic divide – or faultline – interorganizational R&D teams may perform; without it, they tend to perform poorly. Supportive evidence is provided in a fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis on 51 projects conducted in a single R&D partnership. As this implies, interorganizational R&D teams should deliberately be composed to show a cross‐cutting demographic divide.