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.     

Factors Affecting the Process of Collaborative Product Development: A Study of UK Manufacturers of Information and Communications Technology Products

Product development is inherently risky, particularly when new technology is involved. Although collaborative product development is promoted as a means for reducing or at least sharing risk, such partnerships present their own challenges. Collaboration can also accentuate many of the risks inherent in product development. For example, any product development project requires effective communication among development team members. In a collaborative effort, this challenge is even greater because the development team spans organizational as well as functional boundaries. Dale Littler, Fiona Leverick, and Margaret Bruce describe the results of a survey that was conducted to identify the risks and benefits of collaborative product development as well as the key success factors for such relationships. The main reasons cited for collaborating on product development projects include satisfying customer requirements, taking advantage of market opportunities for which the firm lacks necessary skills and technical expertise, and responding to changes in technology. Other reasons for collaboration include reducing the cost and risk of product R&D, improving time to market, and gaining access to new markets. In addition to the risks associated with product development by a single company, the partners in a collaborative effort face several other challenges. For example, one company might gain inside knowledge of its partner's unique skills and expertise. Despite the cost and time involved in managing the collaboration, such a relationship usually results in less direct control over product development. Of particular concern are the difficulties of coordinating the divergent management styles and budgeting processes of the collaborating firms. Collaboration requires frequent communication among all involved parties. The likelihood of success is greatly enhanced by the presence of a product or collaboration champion. Other success factors include ensuring that partners contribute as expected, creating the perception of equal benefits among partners, and building trust between partners. Firms that are more experienced with collaboration also cite the importance of flexibility in corporate systems and management style, fit with existing businesses, and the choice of a partner.     

Learning to collaborate through collaboration: How allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms

Research summary : Strategic alliances have been recognized as a means for firms to learn their partners' proprietary knowledge; such alliances are also valuable opportunities for partner firms to learn tacit organizational routines from their counterparts. We consider how relatively novice technology firms can learn intraorganizational collaborative routines from more experienced alliance partners and then deploy them independently for their own innovative pursuits. We examine the alliance relationships between Eli Lilly & Co. (Lilly), a recognized expert in collaborative innovation, and 55 small biotech partner firms. Using three levels of analysis (firm, patent, and inventor dyad), we find that greater social interaction between the partner firm and Lilly subsequently increases internal collaboration among the partner firm's inventors. Managerial summary : Can collaborating externally advance internal collaboration? Yes. Our research found that collaboration among scientists at small, early‐stage biotechnology firms significantly increased after these firms formed highly interactive R&D alliances with a large pharmaceutical company known for its expertise in such collaboration. It is well known that alliances help new firms learn specific new technologies and commercialize innovations. Our study broadens the scope of potential benefits of alliances. New firms can also learn collaboration techniques, deploying them internally to enhance their own abilities in collaborative innovation. Managers should take this additional benefit into consideration in developing their alliance strategies. Pursuing alliance partners with expertise in collaboration and keeping a high level of mutual interactions with partner firm personnel should be important considerations to extract this value. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Creating shareholder value via collaborative innovation: the role of industry and resource alignment in knowledge exploration

Collaborative innovation provides firms with a privileged opportunity to perform exploration in an externally oriented mode. The central challenges in exploration via collaborative innovation lie in the selection of relevant partners and in gaining access to potentially valuable external knowledge that the focal firm lacks. This article focuses on two aspects of inter-organizational alignment that affect knowledge differences and may thus help explaining the shareholder value implications arising from collaborative innovation: industry and resource alignment. Relying on data covering 97 bilateral collaborative innovations (194 innovation partners) in R&D intensive high-technology industries, we used event study methodology and follow-up hierarchical regression analyses to test our conceptual framework. With regard to industry alignment, results suggest that investors value greater industry distance between collaborating partners, especially when the partner firm provides high-level R&D resources. Furthermore, the results show a positive effect of supplementary resource alignment (i.e., a focal firm's R&D resources are supplemented by a partner firm's R&D resources) and, notably, a negative effect of complementary resource alignment (i.e., a focal firm's R&D resources are complemented by a partner firm's marketing resources) on investors' valuation of the collaboration's expected future performance. They, thus, contribute to research on shareholder value implications of collaborative innovation. From a managerial perspective, the study provides a better understanding of partner selection and shows how managers should position a collaboration to signal the shareholder value-creating potential to investors.     

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.     

Factors influencing partner selection in strategic alliances: the moderating role of alliance context

The growth of alliances has generated considerable interest in this topic among both academics and practitioners. While multiple factors may affect alliance success, partner selection emerges as one of the most influential. Previous studies on alliances present general models that assume the factors (e.g., trust, commitment, complementarity, financial payoff) that drive partner attractiveness and, in turn, the likelihood of selection, are consistent across varying alliance projects and situations. In contrast, the present study proposes a contingency approach grounded in management control theory that suggests the criteria managers use in choosing alliance partners will vary by alliance project type. Specifically, it introduces a framework that addresses when and why managers select partners with certain, specific characteristics. The results of the present study strongly support hypotheses that the critical criteria for assessing alliance partner attractiveness and selection vary depending on the differential levels of process manageability and outcome interpretability inherent in a strategic alliance. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

How Central Is Too Central? Organizing Interorganizational Collaboration Networks for Breakthrough Innovation

Firms increasingly look to collaboration with alliance partners in their quest for breakthrough innovation. But how does the position of a firm in its alliance network weighted by the centrality of its partners—a concept which we term “partner‐weighted alliance centrality”—and the heterogeneities in the types of partners that it cooperates with—in terms of its private‐public collaboration—influence this quest? Using longitudinal data from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, we build alliance networks in the period 1985–2001 to investigate these questions. We show that, for breakthrough innovation, collaborating with more partners that are more central in alliance networks the better, but only to a point. Beyond that point, we find that the likelihood of achieving breakthrough innovation drops. Furthermore, and looking at the kinds of knowledge provided by the partners in each firm's alliances, we report that firms with a greater share of private partners, relative to public partners, suffer less from the diminishing benefits of collaboration with central partners when developing breakthrough innovation. Taken together, we make novel contributions about how to organize for breakthrough innovation, and provide actionable managerial advice in terms of selecting collaborative partners in alliance networks.     

Effects of Collaborative Communication on NPD Collaboration Results: Two Routes of Influence

Although NPD collaboration with external partners has become the next generation in NPD practice, the discussion concerning how to organize collaboration so as to obtain better results is far from over. Since communication is the most important element in successful interfirm exchange, this study focuses on the impact of collaborative communication and its facets—frequency, formality, reciprocal feedback, and rationality—on NPD collaboration results. In order to explain how collaborative communication can best be managed to enhance NPD collaboration results, this research combines the relational and resource‐based views, proposing the existence of two routes of influence: the direct resource‐based route and the indirect relational route mediated by trust. Using a sample of 207 NPD collaboration projects of innovative firms, empirical findings indicate that reciprocal feedback–rationality and frequency play an important role in product quality and adherence to budget and schedule, respectively, even without trust. Moreover, the trust between partners substantially reinforces the positive influence of reciprocal feedback–rationality on NPD collaboration results and makes the effect of formality significant. Therefore, the two alternative routes are confirmed as important paths to new product success, which provides relevant managerial implications.     

The up- and downside of collaboration in core and non-core technologies – Selective,contingent, and orchestrated openness in R&D collaborations

This paper contributes to the current debate about the “knowledge sharing-protecting” tension in R&D collaborations by introducing a new angle for analyzing this paradox. Considering the role of internal knowledge sources of the firm, the paper introduces and empirically analyses the interplay between three knowledge governance mechanisms (selective, contingent, and orchestrated openness) and the different technological fields of the firm (core, related non-core, and distant non-core technologies). Based on a unique first-hand large-scale project-level dataset from a Global 100 firm across a 10-year span, this research finds that R&D collaborations selectively conducted in firm’s related non-core technological fields promise the best innovation performance. Further, by orchestrating its projects across core and non-core technological fields in the same knowledge portfolio, the firm can leverage a network of inter-connected projects when collaborating with external partners. As such, the firm can strategically “distribute” collaboration risks across multiple projects, while optimize its access to external knowledge that it intends to get. Finally, contrary to the common assumption, this study does not find any discriminating factors against market-based partners in their contribution to innovation in both core and non-core technologies.     

Networking as a Means to Strategy Change: The Case of Open Innovation in Mobile Telephony

The purpose of this article is to investigate how innovation networks can be used to deal with a changing technological environment. This study combines different concepts related to research and development (R&D) collaboration strategies of large firms and applies these concepts to R&D alliance projects undertaken by Nokia Corporation in the period 1985–2002. The research methodology is a combination of in‐depth semistructured interviews and a large‐scale quantitative analysis of alliance agreements. For the empirical analysis a distinction is made between exploration and exploitation in innovation networks in terms of three different measures. As a first measure, the difference between exploration and exploitation strategies by means of the observed capabilities of the partners of the contracting firms is investigated. The second measure is related to partner turnover. The present article argues that in exploration networks partner turnover will be higher than in exploitation networks. As a third measure, the type of alliance contract will be taken; exploration networks will make use of flexible legal organizational structures, whereas exploitation alliances are associated with legal structures that enable long‐term collaboration. The case of Nokia has illustrated the importance of strategic technology networks for strategic repositioning under conditions of change. Nokia followed an exploitation strategy in the development of the first two generations of mobile telephony and an exploration strategy in the development of technologies for the third generation. Such interfirm networks seem to offer flexibility, speed, innovation, and the ability to adjust smoothly to changing market conditions and new strategic opportunities. These two different strategies have led to distinctly different international innovation networks, have helped the company in becoming a world leader in the mobile phone industry, and have enabled it to sustain that position in a radically changed technological environment. This study also illustrates that Nokia effectively uses an open innovation strategy in the development of new products and services and in setting technology standards for current and future use of mobile communication applications. This article presents one of the first longitudinal studies, which describes the use of innovation networks as a means to adapt swiftly to changing market conditions and strategic change. This study contributes to the emerging, but still inconsistent, literature on explorative and exploitative learning by means of strategic technology networks.     

Precarious collaboration: Business survival after partners shut down or form new partnerships

Businesses often benefit by forming alliances with other firms but risk becoming dependent on their partners. We discuss two situations in which dependence may create serious problems: first, if a partner shuts down and. second, if a partner forms a relationship with a new partner. We examine collaborative relationships formed by businesses operating in the U.S. hospital software systems industry during the 1961–91 period. We find that businesses faced increased risk of dissolution if they did not form new partnerships after partners shut down or formed collaborative relationships with new partners. The results have implications for developing an evolutionary theory of business strategy and performance. Our approach implies that the performance of a focal business often depends on how the strategies of its business partners evolve over time. An evolutionary theory of strategy must incorporate key characteristics of actions and relationships throughout a web of business partnerships. The dual nature of interfirm relationships, which both help a business survive at one time and inhibit its ability to adapt at another, helps explain why so many successful businesses fail when their environments change.     

The Paradox of Openness: How Product and Patenting Experience Affect R&D Sourcing in China?

External R&D sourcing may help firms compete in an environment characterized by rapid technological changes. Yet, prior studies have produced conflicting findings on how a firm's technological experience affects the extent to which the firm engages in external R&D sourcing. Although many highlight that firms with extensive technological experience are equipped with more technological knowledge, collaborative skills, and absorptive capacity, encouraging greater levels of external R&D, others suggest the opposite due to potential exchange hazards and partnership conflicts. Adopting an external partner's perspective, the current study reconsiders this “paradox of openness” by analyzing how a focal firm's product experience and patenting experience affect an external partner's tendency to provide external R&D services to the focal firm. Specifically, this study explore how a focal firm's knowledge protectiveness and tacitness embedded in its product and patenting experience influences the external partners' motivation for knowledge transfer. This study predicts that a firm's product experience increases the focal firm's external R&D sourcing because it provides high levels of knowledge tacitness and external openness and can encourage external partners to share and exchange knowledge with the focal firm. In contrast, a firm's patenting experience decreases the focal firm's external R&D sourcing because it denotes knowledge explicitness and protectiveness and may discourage external partners to share and exchange knowledge with the focal firm. This study further predicts that patenting experience has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between product experience and external R&D sourcing. Using a data set of 575 high‐tech firms in China, this study finds support for our predictions. Our findings contribute to the growing literature on the knowledge‐based view and technology entrepreneurship in emerging markets.     

Exploring Correlates of Product Launch in Collaborative Ventures: An Empirical Investigation of Pharmaceutical Alliances

This paper examines collaborative ventures leading toward the launch of new products in the pharmaceutical industry. These collaborative ventures are one of the most underresearched areas in the new product literature, yet the preponderance of these collaborative ventures makes it an area of great importance for scholars and practitioners alike. As such, the purpose of the study is to examine why some collaborative projects produce a favorable outcome (the launch of a product) whereas others do not. That is, what characteristics of partner firms in the collaborative ventures and what characteristics of the partnership lead to a successful launch of a new product in the pharmaceutical industry? Secondary data from the pharmaceutical industry are employed in a multinomial logit model. Data from 128 collaborative ventures from 1980 to 2004 are used in the analysis. The partner firms in the collaborative ventures are from various industries ranging from malt beverages to pharmaceutical preparations to electronic and other equipment among others. Of the 128 collaborative ventures, 66 were successful in leading to a new product launch, whereas 62 did not result in the launch of a new product. The results from the multinomial logit analysis suggest that combined marketing resources of parent companies, combined technological intensity of parent companies, and combined asset bases of parent companies contribute to the likelihood of an eventual product launch in a collaborative venture. However, the results of the analysis show that contrary to expectations, technological complementarity of partners in the collaborative venture is not a significant predictor of successful new product launch. The results of the study suggest certain aspects for managers to consider when establishing collaborative ventures. To maximize the possibilities of the collaborative venture leading to the successful launching of a new product, managers should be concerned with the resources potentially available to partners in the collaborative venture from parent firms. These resources are not only of financial nature but also of technological nature. The existence of these resources does not ensure provision of resources to the collaborative venture; however, without the possibility of these resources it appears that successful launch of a product is less likely.     

Improving Supplier New Product Development Performance: The Role of Supplier Development

Suppliers play an increasingly central role in helping firms achieve their new product development (NPD) goals. The literature implicitly assumes that suppliers are able to meet or exceed the quality standards and technological expectations of the firm, and yet, in practice, suppliers often lack the technological capabilities needed to undertake collaborative NPD. In such situations, a firm may choose to intervene and actively develop the supplier's technological and product development capabilities. We develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes supplier development activities within interorganizational NPD projects as part of a bilateral knowledge‐sharing process: design recommendations, technical specifications, and new technology flow from supplier to the firm, and in turn, the firm can implement supplier development activities to upgrade the supplier's technological capabilities. Antecedents (supplier responsibility, skills similarity, single sourcing strategy) and consequences of supplier development activities (on supplier, product, and project performance) are examined using a sample of 153 interorganizational NPD projects within UK manufacturers. We find broad support for our hypotheses. In particular, we show that the relational rents (in the form of improved product and project performance) attained from supplier development activities in new product development are not achieved directly, but rather indirectly, via improvements in the supplier's creative and technological capabilities. Our results emphasize the importance of adopting a strategic view of the potential returns available from investing in the NPD capabilities of key suppliers, and provide clues about underlying reasons for the suboptimal experiences of many companies' collaborative NPD projects.     

基于CEO变动调节效应的高管团队特征对企业研发投资及技术创新绩效的影响研究

本文以信息技术业上市公司2011～2014年的数据为样本,运用逐步多元回归分析的方法,通过逐步引入高管团队特征变量、CEO变动变量、CEO变动变量与高管团队特征变量交互项对因变量研发投资及技术创新绩效影响进行了回归分析。结果表明：CEO变动对研发投资和技术创新绩效具有显著的正向相关关系;CEO变动可以部分调节高管团队特征对研发投资和技术创新绩效的影响;高管团队持股与年龄异质性与技术创新绩效显著正相关;两职合一与研发投资显著负相关;任期异质性和教育程度异质性与研发投资显著正相关。     

Knowledge Acquisition in University–Industry Alliances: An Empirical Investigation from a Learning Theory Perspective*

A firm's technological knowledge base is the foundation on which internal product and process innovations are generated. However, technological knowledge is not accumulated solely through internal learning processes. Increasingly, firms are turning to external sources in the technology supply chain to acquire the technological knowledge they need to introduce product and process innovations. Thus, the successful structuring and executing of partnerships with external “technology source” organizations is often critical to competitive success in technologically dynamic environments. This study uses situated learning theory as a basis for explaining how factors inherent to the knowledge acquisition context may affect the successful transference of technological knowledge from universities to their industry partners. Data collected via a survey instrument from 104 industry managers were used to explore the effects of various organizational knowledge interface factors on knowledge acquisition success in university–industry alliances. The organizational knowledge interface factors hypothesized to affect knowledge acquisition success in the current research include partner trust, partner familiarity, technology familiarity, alliance experience, formal collaboration teams, and technology experts' communications. Results indicate that partner trust predicts the successful acquisition of tacit knowledge but not explicit knowledge. Both forms of knowledge are predicted by partner familiarity and communications between the partners' technology experts. These findings suggest three principal managerial implications. First, although the development of a trusting relationship between the knowledge source and knowledge‐seeking parties is generally advisable, firms that seek to acquire explicit technological knowledge from their alliance partners may successfully do so without having made significant time and energy investments designed to assure themselves that they can trust those partners. The relative observability and verifiability of explicit knowledge relative to tacit knowledge may enable knowledge‐seeking parties to have greater confidence that knowledge has been acquired when partner trust is in question or has not been deliberately developed. A second implication is that, other things being equal, a knowledge‐seeking party's interests may be best served through repeated exposures to particular alliance partners, particularly if those exposures facilitate mutual understandings on relevant process‐related matters. A third managerial implication is that ongoing, broad‐based communications between the partners' technology experts should be used to effect technology transfer. A key quality of the organizational knowledge interface that promotes the successful acquisition of technological knowledge, both tacit and explicit, is multipoint, real‐time contact between the technology experts of the partner organizations. Such communications potentially enable the knowledge‐seeking party to directly access desired information through the most knowledgeable individuals on an as‐needed basis.     

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.     

Determinants of Technical Success in Product Development When Innovative Radicalness Is Considered

Mushin Lee and Dohyeong Na present their analysis of data obtained from Korean project leaders in order to investigate the relationships between various factors and technical project success. When the radicalness of technical innovativeness is employed as a contingency variable, the result shows that existence of a champion is critical if the innovativeness is radical. Top management's support, R&D, production, and financial capabilities, and information acquisition during the development stage are related to the success, but there is no indication that the radicalness heavily affects the relationships. Information acquisition during the idea generation stage is not important for both radical and incremental improvement projects.