The Role of Champions in the External Commercialization of Knowledge*

Besides applying knowledge in their own products or services, firms may externally commercialize their knowledge assets (e.g., by means of outlicensing). The literature on champions, however, has focused on internal innovation. This gap in prior research is particularly remarkable as the potential for promoting external knowledge exploitation is high. Some pioneering firms realize great benefits, whereas most others experience major managerial difficulties. This paper tests five hypotheses regarding the emergence and impact of champions of external knowledge exploitation with data from 152 firms across industries. The results of the questionnaire‐based study demonstrate the relevance of champions of external knowledge exploitation. Championing constitutes an essential success factor and has strongly contributed to the recent increase in external knowledge commercialization. These findings help to explain the discrepancies between the few successful and the majority of unsuccessful firms. Beyond existing insights, the emergence of champions is affected by external determinants in addition to internal determinants. There is an inverted U‐shaped relationship between championing and the internal determinants, that is, organizational climate and active strategy. Moreover, there is a negative relationship between championing and market imperfection and an inverted U‐shaped relationship between championing and competitive intensity, which both constitute external determinants of championing. In contrast to the traditional understanding, champions tend to emerge in supportive environments, in which internal and external barriers are relatively low. This surprising finding calls for rethinking the role and motivation of champions.     

Opening up the innovation process: the role of technology aggressiveness

Besides acquiring external knowledge, many firms have begun to actively commercialize technology, for example, by means of out-licensing. This increase in inward and outward technology transactions reflects the new paradigm of open innovation. Most prior research into open innovation is limited to theoretical considerations and case studies, whereas other lines of research have focused either on external technology acquisition or exploitation. In an integrative view, we consider inward and outward technology transactions as the main directions of open innovation. Moreover, technology aggressiveness, which constitutes an important dimension of technology strategy, is identified as a major determinant of open innovation. Data from a survey of 154 industrial firms are used to test three hypotheses relating technology aggressiveness, external technology acquisition, and external technology exploitation. In addition, clusters of firms with homogeneous strategies regarding technology aggressiveness and open innovation are identified.     

Die wirtschaftlichen Wirkungen des technischen Fortschritts

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

A note on outbound open innovation and firm performance

The concept of open innovation has attracted a lot of interest over the past decade. In light of a relative emphasis on inbound open innovation (indicating an outside‐in process) in prior research, this brief note addresses the relationship between outbound open innovation (indicating an inside‐out process) and firm performance. In particular, it suggests that outbound open innovation may have positive and negative effects on firm performance based on potential benefits and risks of transferring technology. To what degree these effects materialize depends on internal factors, e.g. desorptive capacity, and external factors, e.g. appropriability. Consequently, a proficient internal management of outbound open innovation is critical to avoid its potential risks and to capture its substantial benefits. In this regard, future research may substantially deepen the insights into the relevance and role of outbound open innovation.     

Ist die EU-Agrarpolitik ihr Geld wert?

Expenditure for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been in the centre of recent policy debate in the preparation of the Financial Framework for the period 2014–2020. Expenditure has generally been considered as the necessary costs for the achievement of the CAP objectives. The authors of this article argue that expenditure is not equal to the economic costs of a policy. Moreover, they claim that the main part of CAP expenditure is not well targeted for the achievement of the CAP’s objectives. The bulk of expenditure is for direct payments tied to agricultural land and, hence, contributes little if anything to CAP’s objectives as laid down in the treaties of the European Union or officially articulated elsewhere.