Licensing Foreign Technology and the Moderating Role of Local R&D Collaboration: Extending the Relational View

The relational resource‐based view posits that performance differences among firms can be explained not only by the possession of internal resources but also by maintaining and developing relationships with external partners. However, studies in the extant literature usually address the separated roles of various external relationships of focal firms, but the literature has not addressed how relationships with different sets of knowledge partners are related to each other and influence focal firms' performance. Therefore, to fill this research gap, this study focuses on how technological resources acquired from one set of partners (licensing foreign technologies) may generate subsequent internal and relational rents in terms of technological innovation in the context of collaboration with an entirely different set of knowledge partners (local R&D partners). Specifically, we propose that local R&D collaborations need to be large in scale and broad in scope. The empirics are based on the analysis of a sample of 160 high‐tech Chinese firms observed from 2000 to 2011. Consistent with our predictions, our findings contribute to extending the relational view by addressing the relations among the relationships of focal firms.     

Relationship governance for very different partners: The corporation-nonprofit case

Organizations increasingly form relationships with partners that have goals, values or operating cultures different to their own. These relationships have significant potential to generate innovative products or services and increase opportunities for service delivery. While they can provide greater access to resources, infrastructure or stakeholders, they can struggle with collaboration. Such partnerships may also encounter differences in the role of governance mechanisms such as trust and commitment. Only limited research however has addressed the governance implications of such relationships. We compared managers' perspectives on relationship governance mechanisms for 267 nonprofits and 276 corporations involved in corporate-nonprofit relationships. We found that ‘fit’ - compatibility and complementarity - was important to performance in such relationships. We found also however that nonprofits valued the role of trust in these relationships significantly more than corporations. Our findings suggest potential for significant success in these types of relationships but also possible complications from differences of opinion as to how they should be governed. While relationships between very different partners can succeed, they should remain cognizant of differences in each partner's expectations for relationship governance and its role in relationship performance.     

Customer collaboration,service firms' diversification and innovation performance

To sustain competitive advantage, service firms must adapt to the market environment, often by means of diversification and innovation. While extensive research has focussed on the role of customer collaboration in service firm innovation performance, fewer studies have examined the role of firm diversification in this relationship. This study draws on the resource-based view and dynamic capability literature to explore relationships between customer collaboration, diversification and innovation performance of service firms. A conceptual framework was developed and tested using a survey of 156 mining equipment, technology and services (METS) firms in South Australia, and case studies. The findings indicate that service and market diversification mediate the relationship between customer collaboration and innovation performance. Importantly, our findings demonstrate that customer collaboration has no direct effect on the innovation performance of service firms. The research helps practitioners and policymakers to understand the importance of enhancing collaboration across supply chains to build diversified and resilient to downturns in traditional sectors service economies.     

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.     

Trust Formation in University–Industry Collaborations in the U.S. Biotechnology Industry: IP Policies,Shared Governance,and Champions*,†

Haggling over rights to potential inventions can be a major roadblock to successful university–industry (UI) collaborations. Yet such collaborations are critical for innovation in science‐based industries. This study examines the roles of universities' intellectual property (IP) policies and of shared governance for trust formation between academe and industry. The study also examines how UI champions moderate this process and how trust between university and industry partners affects UI collaboration outcomes. The analysis of survey data of 105 recent UI collaborations in the U.S. biotechnology industry indicates that the flexibility and transparency of university IP policies and shared governance by UI partners are both positively related to trust formation. The activities of UI champions amplify the positive effects of shared governance and at the same time reduce the importance of university IP policies for trust formation between UI partners. The amount of trust between partners is positively related to knowledge transfer and innovation performance. The findings suggest that despite widely reported industry concerns over the control of IP, UI research partners can develop a trustful environment and thereby plant the seeds for a successful collaboration. In order to enhance trust, companies should not only consider university IP policies, but also need to actively engage in shared governance with university partners. UI collaboration champions can help shift the attention of company managers from formal rules set by university IP policies toward shared project planning, coordination, and implementation with university partners.     

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.     

DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGY,ENTRY MODE,AND PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE OF CHOICE AND CONSTRAINTS

Despite theoretical arguments matching type of diversification strategy with mode of entry, the exact form of relationships between strategy, mode of entry, and performance remains enigmatic. Our analysis, based on two samples, demonstrates that matches between strategy and mode did improve performance in one time period, but not a second. In addition, the results show that exclusive reliance on a single mode (internal development or acquisition) can restrict performance. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Mitigating the Challenges of Partner Knowledge Diversity While Enhancing Research & Development (R&D) Alliance Performance: The Role of Alliance Governance Mechanisms

This article explores the answers to the following unresolved research question: How do firms mitigate the collaboration challenges associated with partner knowledge diversity and enhance alliance performance? The study provides an alliance performance enhancing framework by identifying two types of partner knowledge diversity: (1) technology base diversity and (2) R&D process experience diversity, and links them with R&D alliance performance. Additionally, the moderating effects of the two types of alliance governance mechanisms (i.e., interactive and contractual mechanisms) were examined to investigate which alliance governance mechanism is conducive to mitigate the collaboration challenges and enhance alliance performance. Using a data set of 316 alliances in the biopharmaceuticals industry, the study found that a moderate degree (not too low or high) of technology base diversity between alliance partners contributes more to R&D alliance performance. Similarly, there was also an inverted U-shaped relationship between R&D process experience diversity and alliance performance; too much diversity in R&D process experience may increase the likelihood of partner opportunism, and therefore negatively affect alliance performance. Additionally, the results showed that alliance governance mechanisms played different roles in alliance collaboration; while the contractual alliance mechanisms help reduce relational uncertainty (e.g., opportunism), the interactive mechanisms promoting a more intensive interaction between partners mitigates task difficulty and facilitates complex technology activities. These findings extend the knowledge-based view (KBV) of strategic alliance and advance research on alliance governance design.     

Relationship-specific investments,social capital,and performance: The case of Korean exporter/foreign buyer relations

Relationship-specific investments are addressed as crucial factors for the successful management of the exporter–foreign buyer relationships. It is hypothesized that relationship-specific investments have a positive impact on social capital components such as trust and commitment, which in turn contribute to the relationship and business performance satisfaction between partners. On the basis of our analysis of the relationships between Korean exporters and their foreign buyers, the validity of the roles of relationship-specific investments and social capital are clearly demonstrated. The results provide us with a meaningful implication to the successful management of inter-firm relationships.     

Legitimizing actions in dependence-asymmetry relationships: A comparison between Chinese and Western firms

To overcome the negative outcomes of dependence, disadvantaged parties in exchange relationships characterized by dependence asymmetry seek effective strategies to rebalance their dependence. Obtaining legitimacy in the eyes of the advantaged party through legitimizing actions is a novel way to influence the advantaged party's exchange and conflict management approaches toward the disadvantaged party. However, a disadvantaged party's preference between external and internal legitimizing actions varies across cultures because culture influence the character if the relationship management preference. Drawing on the individualism–collectivism framework, we argue that facing dependence asymmetry, a Chinese firm is more likely to seek legitimacy through external legitimizing actions than a Western firm. In contrast, a Western firm is more likely to seek legitimacy through internal legitimizing actions than a Chinese firm when facing dependence asymmetry. We also predict a positive relationship between legitimizing actions, both external and internal, and the disadvantaged party's performance. We test these hypotheses by collecting dyadic survey data of exchange partners in Chinese-owned and Western-owned firms. The results support most of our predictions. Theoretical and managerial implications for partners in dependence-asymmetric relationships are discussed based on these findings.     

Performance in publicly funded innovation networks (PFINs): The role of inter-organisational relationships

This research investigates how performance in Publicly Funded Innovation Networks (PFINs) is affected by the inter-organisational relationships in terms of alignment between network administration and participating organisations. Our findings from a longitudinal embedded case study of a PFIN in the Nordic maritime industry show two key insights. First, we identify three patterns of inter-organisational relationships: functional (alignment between the self-organised relationships by project partners and relationship requirements from network administration), dysfunctional (contradictions between the self-organised relationships by project partners and relationship requirements from network administration), and anarchic (self-organised relationships by project partners with a lack of direction or leadership). Second, we show that each of these patterns of inter-organisational relationships have different effects on performance factors. An unexpected emergent finding was the observation of sub-circles of functional relationships within projects of dysfunctional relationships aimed at circumventing the misaligned requirements of network administration. We propose a conceptual framework detailing the effects of these three relationship patterns on PFIN performance in terms of immediate and long-term effects.     

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.     

Retrospective relational sensemaking in R&D offshoring

To address the increasing relational challenges in international R&D collaboration, the present study develops a framework for understanding retrospective relational sensemaking in R&D offshore relationships. Using a comparative case study methodology, this study analyzes relational data from 56 interviews regarding four R&D offshore relationships between two large Swedish multinational companies and four R&D offshore partners. This study contributes to existing sensemaking theory by constructing a framework for retrospective relational sensemaking, including triggers and the phases of enactment, selection, and retention, to improve relational learning in R&D offshore relationships.     

Influences of cross-functional collaboration and knowledge creation on technology commercialization: Evidence from high-tech industries

Technology commercialization (TC) contributes to maintaining the competitive advantage of high-tech firms, but although researchers have established that product innovation and new product development are enhanced by cross-functional collaboration and organizational knowledge activities, this may not be the case for TC. Drawing on the knowledge-based view and the influence of cross-functional collaboration, the main goal of this study is to unravel the relationships among cross-functional collaboration, knowledge creation and TC performance in the high-tech industry context. Empirical findings from our survey of 203 marketing and R&D managers and employees in Taiwanese high-tech companies indicate that cross-function collaboration reveals fresh opportunities for creating knowledge and commercializing technologies. Our results also suggest that knowledge creation plays an important role in TC performance by partially mediating the relationship between cross-functional collaboration and TC performance. The contributions of this study provide new insights into industrial marketing literature by proposing a cross-functional collaboration-enabled TC model that takes into account the effect of knowledge creation.     

Free‐riding in multi‐party alliances: The role of perceived alliance effectiveness and peers' collaboration in a research consortium

Research summary : Multi‐party alliances rely on partners' willingness to commit and pool their efforts in joint endeavors. However, partners face the dilemma of how much to commit to the alliance. We shed light on this issue by analyzing the relationship between partners' free‐riding—defined as their effort‐withholding—and their perceptions of alliance effectiveness and peers' collaboration. Specifically, we posit a U‐shaped relationship between partners' subjective evaluations of alliance effectiveness and their free‐riding. We also hypothesize a negative relation between partners' perceptions of the collaboration of peer organizations and their free‐riding. Results from a mixed‐method study—combining regression analysis of primary data on a major inter‐organizational research consortium and evidence from two experimental designs—support our hypotheses, bearing implications for the multi‐party alliances literature. Managerial summary : Free‐riding is a major concern in multi‐party alliances such as large research consortia, since the performance of these governance forms hinges on the joint contribution of multiple partners that often operate according to different logics (e.g., universities, firms, and government agencies). We show that, in such alliances, partners' perceptions have relevant implications for their willingness to contribute to the consortium's shared goals. Specifically, we find that partners free‐ride more—that is, contribute less—when they perceive the effectiveness of the overall alliance to be either very low or very high. Partners also gauge their commitment to the alliance on the perception of the effort of their peers—that is, other organizations similar to them. These findings provide managers of multi‐party alliances with additional levers to motivate partners to contribute fairly to such joint endeavor. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do professional service firms benefit from customer and supplier collaborations in competitive,turbulent environments?

Although recent research on business-to-business professional service firms (PSFs) emphasizes the role and consequences of collaboration with business partners, we know little regarding the conditions under which bright-side benefits of PSF interfirm collaboration turn into dark-side drawbacks. Our study shows that customer and supplier collaborations have both bright and dark sides, and their benefits with respect to helping a PSF to drive service performance are contingent on the levels of the environmental competition and turbulence. In particular, we show that increasing levels of competitive intensity and environmental turbulence encountered by a PSF can diminish the capacity of customer and supplier collaborations to drive service performance. When the level of competitive intensity increases, the benefits of customer collaboration become more positive; however, the dark-side of supplier collaboration becomes more pronounced, which negatively influences service performance. When the level of environmental turbulence increases, the dark-side of customer and supplier collaborations becomes more critical and the benefits derived from interfirm collaboration to promote service performance can be lost.     

Making the transition to collaborative buyer-seller relationships: An emerging framework

In recent years, many business-to-business marketers have been influenced by the concepts put forth in the area of relationship marketing, with its emphasis on long-term collaborative relationships among trading partners. However, buyers and sellers alike have found it difficult to make the transition from an arm's length, “invisible hand of the market” relationship to one of collaboration, for a variety of reasons. We propose a framework, still emerging, that captures the elements critical to the transition process. We do not advocate collaborative relationships in all buyer-seller relationships; however, where they make sense we demonstrate how to overcome barriers to collaboration. Explicitly recognizing the elements of the framework and their relationship to one another would help potential collaborators better manage the transition process and thereby increase the likelihood of reaping the benefits of a truly more collaborative relationship.     

The impact of coercive and non-coercive forms of influence on trust, commitment, and compliance in supply chains

A major premise in managing channel relationships is encouraging cooperation to achieve the aims of the relational partners. This often requires a balancing act between utilization of influence across the supply chain to motivate decisions, while employing tactics that do not damage the future of the relationship. This paper builds and tests a model of how influence strategies affect relational elements, specifically trust and commitment, which both promote strong inter-firm relationships and act as mediators of joint action, specifically cooperation and compliance across channel partners. Results suggest that coercive strategies are counterproductive in encouraging cooperation and compliance either directly or through relational intermediaries, while non-coercive influence produces positive outcomes and effects on intermediaries. Low levels of coercive influence do appear to generate positive outcomes. Managerial implications and future research based on these results conclude the paper.     

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.