Patterns of international R&D cooperation for new product development: the Olivetti multimedia product

Abstract
The aim of the paper is to identify a number of different patterns of international R&D cooperation during the initial phases of the product development process. This is a case-study of new product development based on the work of the Olivetti Multimedia Laboratory in Pisa, how it set up its own pattern of multinational collaboration in the idea generation and pre-competitive phase; how, in turn, this collaboration led to new R&D collaboration agreements to satisfy specific problem-solving requirements connected with the confirmation of a dominant design, though limited to a certain extent by previous agreements between Olivetti and other firms; the role played by marketing in the choice of alternative solutions. Finally, in the product implementation phase, the emergence of a defined technological paradigm leads to a highly competitive environment, where R&D collaboration is increasingly directed towards multifunctional requirements (R&D, manufacturing, marketing) within a strategic network of alliances that involves large sized companies, start-up firms, industrial and university research units.     

From laboratory to clinic: science commercialization within university-centered entrepreneurial ecosystems

The commercialization of scientific discoveries within the university-industry nexus is multifaceted and complex, characterized by dynamic interactions between multiple agents, organizations, and institutions. These interactions support a university-centered entrepreneurial ecosystem (UCEE). Our study investigates agent-institution dynamics within the UCEE to explore how individual agents seek to commercialize their scientific discoveries. Specifically, relying on 47 narrative interviews, we explore how UCEE agents across three UCEEs in the United States, United Kingdom, and Russia respond and adapt to institutional commercialization mandates during commercialization of their stem cell-based regenerative medicine discoveries. Our findings emphasize the bi-directional relationship between individual agents and institutions within a UCEE, facilitating a much-needed multi-level perspective on academic entrepreneurship research. We extend recent frameworks that propose how the formative stages of the entrepreneurial process – opportunity evolution – influences ecosystem emergence. Specifically, by investigating the latter stages of the entrepreneurial process – how (science-based) opportunities are commercialized within UCEEs – we reveal distinct behavioral responses to science commercialization mandates, which underscore how UCEEs evolve. Furthermore, by explicating the importance of UCEE agent behavior during science commercialization, our study shines an important spotlight onto the microfoundations of science commercialization and UCEEs. Our research imparts important policy implications for institutions tasked with commercializing scientific discoveries and policy makers challenged with developing high growth, sustainable UCEEs.     

How Canon and Sony Drive Product Innovation Through Networking and Application-Focused R&D

To ensure the ongoing vitality of a company's product offerings, R&D professionals must play a daunting array of roles. The already rapid, yet still accelerating, pace of technological change may lead some companies to devote more resources to intensive internal research efforts. However, the shift toward global competition demands a more market-oriented focus from R&D; clear understanding of current and potential markets must drive R&D efforts. And efficient, cost-effective manufacturing of new products requires an R&D organization that understands and interacts effectively with the production department. How does a company create an environment in which its R&D organization comprises market-savvy, production-friendly experts in diverse technologies? With case studies of R&D efforts at Canon and Sony, Sigvald Harryson identifies and illustrates the key mechanisms that these companies use to foster product innovation. His examples show how Canon and Sony use a combination of external and internal networking mechanisms to identify and acquire key technologies and related skills, gain market knowledge, improve the results of internal R&D efforts, and ensure the successful transfer of these results to efficient production processes. He identifies four key mechanisms underlying successful product innovation at Canon and Sony: strategic training and job rotation for engineers, application-driven R&D, direct transfer of development teams from R&D to production, and extensive networking with external centers of excellence and key suppliers. At Canon, the initial training program for all researchers and engineers begins with three months of work on a production line. Sony's new researchers and development engineers spend one month in production. Both companies also give their new R&D professionals three months of training in sales and marketing. The emphasis on market-driven research at both companies means that researchers have identified some commercial application for almost every initial research proposal that gains approval. Neither company treats research as a long-term assignment; almost all engineers at both companies eventually move from the labs to production. And rather than viewing this job rotation strategy as a drain on the technological expertise in their labs, both companies rely on strong external networks with key suppliers and university-based researchers as important sources for acquiring new technologies and the competencies needed to support them.     

Academic entrepreneurship at Belgian Universities

In this paper a framework of university-industry interactions is discussed. The presence or absence of academic entrepreneurial behaviour is considered as a basic variable in distinguishing a host of transfer mechanisms. As a hypothesis it is stated that university-industry interactions are hampered by three types of barriers: cultural, institutional and operational.
This framework is then applied to the Belgian university system. The relative importance of different groups of transfer mechanisms is described. Particular attention is given to the barriers occurring during licensing arrangements and entrepreneurial ventures. A mix of cultural, institutional and operational barriers helps to explain why licensing arrangements and entrepreneurial ventures occur at present less frequently then the assistance mechanisms.     

Understanding the role of marketing-purchasing collaboration in industrial markets: The case of Russia

This study aims to investigate the role of interfunctional collaboration between marketing and purchasing functions in industrial companies. Interfunctional collaboration is considered as a measure of the internal alignment and partnership between departments in the firm, which in turn contributes to the creation of sustainable advantages via improved external partnerships and facilitating demand chain integration. We test the impact of customer orientation as well as the interactions between departments (specifically marketing and purchasing) as collaboration antecedents, and analyze the direct impact of marketing-purchasing collaboration on business performance. The model is tested on a sample of 148 industrial companies in Russia with two key respondents in each firm, incorporating the purchasing as well as the marketing perspective. The results show that marketing-purchasing collaboration mediates the effects of interfunctional interaction as well as customer orientation on business performance. Alternative model testing shows that the direct effects of these antecedent constructs on performance are non-significant in the context of Russian industrial companies.     

Initial conditions or process of development? Critical incidents in the early stages of new ventures

Past research on new venture creation has focussed on initial conditions of start–ups or on the process of evolution. However, few studies have investigated the transitory stage when initial conditions changeover to a process of evolution. The aim of this paper is to investigate critical incidents infant new ventures face in this transitory stage. The paper covers two areas. First, a review of selected process models of new venture creation is conducted. Results from this review concludes that existing models as described in the literature are associated with several weaknesses: they oversimplify the phenomenon studied as they most often focus on one aspect only and they do not deal with how entrepreneurs adapt to specific situational conditions. Furthermore, the review indicates that the starting–point of a process often is hard to specify and characterize. Second, an empirical study based on the critical incident technique is reported on. On the basis of interviews with founders and entrepreneurial service providers related to the companies 65 critical incidents were identified. This equals an average of 8.1 incidents per company during a period of 6–18 months. Financing and recruiting were the most frequent and most important activities to manage. Then follows reference/first customer in third place. A common pattern of occurring incidents was identified among the ventures. However, in relation to the first round of venture capital financing a strategic choice was made. Either the companies followed a growth strategy and recruitment and organizational development were key goals, or the company focussed on building a patent portfolio. A tentative model is suggested that describes this process in detail.     

Managerial problems of university-industry interaction

In post-war Poland, universities and higher schools of technology have had to take over not only the role of centres of intellectual activity, but also of animators of technological and economic life. Universities employ more than 60|X% of the total scientific staff of the country, so that the issue of university-industry cooperation is of major importance to them. Despite obstacles caused by the different needs of the two partners, there are many motives for both sides to cooperate, and the various forms the contract can take in practice are described. Design of the coupling is analysed in terms of a two-cycle model of technology transfer, and ways of strengthening the coupling between the two are elaborated. The extent of the university's involvement in research with industrial application is described. Specific measures need to be taken by university boards of management to ensure that this kind of work does not lead to undesirable limitation of scientific freedom in the choice of objects of research, and that the research profile is compatible with the educational programme of the university.     

The determinants of university–industry collaboration in food science in Italy

Firms’ collaboration with academic institutions expands their range of expertise and can support the development of business innovations in several industries. For technological as well as structural reasons, university–industry collaborations are especially important in the case of the food industry. This paper aims at assessing the drivers of knowledge transfer from academic departments to industry. We analyse the dynamics of private funding of university research activities and investigate the drivers of university knowledge transfer from food science university departments, identifying how they differ from drivers in other areas of science. The empirical investigation is based on the econometric analysis of financial data on the whole population of university departments in Italy. We provide some implications for policy, highlighting whether and how university food science departments differ from university departments engaged in other areas of science, and how their interactions with industry can be increased.     

Business model innovation in strategic alliances: a multi‐layer perspective

Business model innovation (BMI) has recently become a topic of interest for research as well as corporate practice. However, we lack specific insights into actors, drivers, and different forms of BMI as the concept is by now mainly addressed in a very general way. In this paper, we analyze how BMI takes place in strategic alliances with the focus of enhancing the recent knowledge about BMI by developing a concept that links firm‐level BMI with alliance‐driven innovation of business models. Against the background of an in‐depth explorative qualitative study, we shed light on the basic nature business model innovation alliances (BMIA) and their effects on both, alliance level and firm level. We develop a process model of BMIA that is the first model providing a holistic picture of this particular type of BMI. Our findings allow for deep insights into BMI processes in incumbent companies and uncover in detail the importance of boundary spanning activities in this realm. By providing these insights, we pave the ground for a new stream of BMI research that focuses on the in‐depth understanding of the role of collaboration and network effects in recent BMI processes. In addition, we show practical benefits for partners in BMI alliances. These insights may help to overcome the traditional fear of negative effects that is still very often prevalent in companies when it comes to issues of partnering with firm external players in strategic issues.     

Business model fashion and the academic spinout firm

Studies indicate that most European new, technology–based firms (NTBFs) have been founded by relatively senior, highly–educated personnel coming from existing companies. These founders already have strong, industry and market links. A relatively small proportion have spun out of university or other public research facilities. However, this latter group has attracted particular attention from several interested groups, including governments and the scientific establishment. For governments, this has appeared to offer a means whereby public policy could have a direct and significant impact on economic development. Hence substantial public resources are increasingly being committed to support these developments in most industrialised countries. The founders of HEI spinouts are often academics aiming to commercialise nascent technologies and they face challenges which are less likely to arise for the founder with an industry background. The emerging technologies often commercialised in academic spinouts may have many potential applications. At the outset founders must make critical strategic choices of applications to develop, if they are to attract the substantial resources often needed for the risky development process. Some of these choices need an understanding of changing fashions in business models and investors' current preferences for particular industries. It is a difficult challenge for academic founders with little prior market knowledge and linkages, and no previous experience of professional investors and their requirements, to select the applications and business models which will support successful venture creation. This paper explores a number of key issues which surround these decisions and their relation to the changing business environment. It is concluded that the acceptability of novel technologies and products is mediated by systemic interactions which are ill–understood by industry and government.     

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.     

Designing Visual Recognition for the Brand*

The present paper examines how companies strategically employ design to create visual recognition of their brands' core values. To address this question, an explorative in‐depth case study was carried out concerning the strategic design efforts of two companies: Nokia (mobile phones) and Volvo (passenger cars). It was found that these two companies fostered design philosophies that lay out which approach to design and which design features are expressive of the core brand values. The communication of value through design was modeled as a process of semantic transformation. This process specifies how meaning is created by design in a three‐way relation among design features, brand values, and the interpretation by a potential customer. By analyzing the design effort of Nokia and Volvo with the help of this model, it is shown that control over the process of semantic transformation enabled managers in both companies to make strategic decisions over the type, strength, and generality of the relation between design features and brand values. Another result is that the embodiment of brand values in a design can be strategically organized around lead products. Such products serve as reference points for what the brand stands for and can be used as such during subsequent new product development (NPD) projects for other products in the brand portfolio. The design philosophy of Nokia was found to depart from that of Volvo. Nokia had a bigger product portfolio and served more market segments. It therefore had to apply its design features more flexibly over its product portfolio, and in many of its designs the relation between design features and brand values was more implicit. Six key drivers for the differences between the two companies were derived from the data. Two external drivers were identified that relate to the product category, and four internal drivers were found to stem from the companies' past and present brand management strategies. These drivers show that the design of visual recognition for the brand depends on the particular circumstances of the company and that it is tightly connected to strategic decision making on branding. These results are relevant for brand, product, and design managers, because they provide two good examples of companies that have organized their design efforts in such a way that they communicate the core values of their brands. Other companies can learn from these examples by considering why these two companies acted as they did and how their communication goals of product design were aligned to those of brand management.     

How to collaborate really well with practitioners

We offer a meta-perspective on the collaboration between university academics and business practitioners. While academics often intuitively and implicitly take an inside perspective, namely a university perspective, in discussing collaborative research and the why, how, and what in collaborating with practitioners, we bring to the fore an outside perspective, namely a business perspective, on the same collaboration, which then typically is termed collaborative innovation. Doing this gives us the opportunity to mirror the two perspectives against each other and to discuss the differences, difficulties, and learning opportunities in the relationship between universities and businesses. Ultimately, we offer a discussion of how academics can be inspired to engage better with practitioners.     

校企合作研发的最优制度安排

本文在对校企合作研发的相关概念进行界定的基础上,讨论了校企合作研发的基本模式及其制度特征的经济学含义,并重点分析了校企共同研发的最优制度安排问题。本研究的主要结论是,在知识产权保护有效的情况下,企业与大学共同研发的最优合约安排是由企业拥有技术创新成果的知识产权,同时企业向大学提供一个固定支付加上与技术绩效挂钩的可变报酬(类似于版税);在弱知识产权保护的情况下,一种次优的可能安排是大学和企业模拟企业间合作研发时采用的合资企业的组织形式,但大学拥有收益权、而不具表决权的干股。本研究的政策含义是,在共同研究过程中,为有效地促进公共研究机构的科技成果转化,企业对知识产权的争取必须配合其他的支付机制,如与研发产出挂钩的可变支付,以尽可能地激励大学的研发努力。     

Time allocations across collaborations of academic scientists and their impact on efforts to commercialize novel technologies: is more always better?

We investigate how time spent in different collaborative research arrangements by academic scientists affect their propensity of involvement in the commercialization of novel, university-originated technologies. Three common collaborative strategies used by academic scientists: (1) internal (within the research group or within the home university) research collaboration; (2) cosmopolitan research collaboration (with scientists in other US or foreign universities); or (3) university–industry research collaboration are assessed. Drawing on the concepts of cognitive and spatial distance, the empirical findings suggest that only one internal research collaboration strategy has a significant impact on the propensity of academic scientists to engage in the commercialization of novel technologies with a private firm; however, this relationship is inverse U shaped. More importantly, academic scientists adopting a university–industry collaboration strategy and spending more research time in such an arrangement have a significantly stronger propensity for being involved in technology commercialization with a private firm; however, this relationship is inverse U shaped as well. We discuss the managerial and policy implications of the findings.     

Cultural prerequisites for participating in open foresight

Companies are increasingly interested in participating in open foresight. However, little is known about the conditions supporting them to open up successfully in open foresight. This research takes a culture perspective on this issue. The leading assumption is that companies with an open culture are more likely to engage in collaboration than companies with a culture inhibiting openness. We use the Competing Values Framework to measure corporate culture, and collaboration breadth and depth to measure openness to external collaboration. Drawing on a sample of 168 Austrian companies, the research confirms that culture plays an important role in creating an environment supportive of open foresight, albeit in a somewhat surprising way: the internally oriented clan culture appears to support openness, while the externally oriented market culture does not support it. Possible explanations for this finding are put forward as directions for further research. The findings should help companies to predict whether they have the cultural conditions in place to embark on an open foresight journey successfully.     

An Examination of Collaboration in High-Technology New Product Development Processes

For more than a decade, researchers have explored the benefits of eliminating organizational boundaries between participants in the new product development (NPD) process. In turn, companies have revamped their NPD processes and organizational structures to deploy cross-functional teams. These efforts toward interfunctional integration have produced a more responsive NPD process, but they don’t represent the endgame in the quest for more effective NPD. What’s next after the interfunctional walls come down?Pointing out that many high-tech firms have already taken such steps as integrating customers and suppliers into the NPD process, Avan Jassawalla and Hemant Sashittal suggest that such firms need to go beyond integration and start thinking in terms of collaboration. Using information from a study of 10 high-tech industrial firms, they identify factors that seem to increase cross-functional collaboration in NPD, and they develop a conceptual framework that relates those factors to the level of cross-functional collaboration achieved in the NPD process.Compared to integration, collaboration is described as a more complex, higher intensity cross-functional linkage. In addition to high levels of integration, their definition of cross-functional collaboration includes the sense of an equal stake in NPD outcomes, the absence of hidden agendas, and a willingness on the part of participants to understand and accept differences while remaining focused on the organization’s common objectives. Collaboration also involves synergy—that is, the NPD outcomes exceed the sum of the capabilities of the individual participants in the NPD process.Their framework suggests that structural mechanisms such as cross-functional teams can provide significant increases in NPD-related interfunctional integration. However, high levels of integration do not necessarily equate to high levels of collaboration. Characteristics of the organization and the participants also affect the level of collaboration. For example, achieving a high level of collaboration depends on participants who contribute an openness to change, a willingness to cooperate, and a high level of trust. Their framework also points to key organizational factors that affect the level of collaboration—for example, the priority that senior management gives to NPD and the level of autonomy afforded to participants in the NPD process.     

Paths Toward Radical Service Innovation in Manufacturing Companies—A Service‐Dominant Logic Perspective

Research on servitization of manufacturing companies concentrates on typologies of product–service bundles, on transition pathways to increased servitization, and on resource and capabilities configurations necessary to accomplish this transition. Missing from existing research is an analysis of the degree of novelty of service innovations introduced by manufacturing companies. Therefore, this article shifts the focus from the transition process itself to the question of how manufacturing companies can introduce radical service innovations to the market. This article links servitization literature with service innovation literature and investigates how manufacturing companies can introduce radically new services in terms of three forms of innovations: service concept innovations, customer experience innovations, and service process innovations. Service‐dominant logic (SDL) is applied as the theoretical lens because it covers four significant factors influencing the success of companies’ innovation activities: actor value networks, resource liquefaction, resource density, and resource integration. Based on a multiple case study of 24 Danish business‐to‐business manufacturing small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises and through a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, different configurations of the principles of SDL are analyzed. They describe the paths to radical service innovation. Digitalization appears as a central causal condition in the bulk of the configurations. Big and rich data generated internally within the focal company in combination with for instance customer data can enhance the innovativeness of the service offerings. However, digitalization is not a sufficient condition for launching radical service innovation—it should be combined with an efficient mobilization of resources internally within the focal company and/or collaboration with other organizations within the value system. In addition, the analysis hints to a need to detach from immediate customers as the prime driver of service innovation.     

Technology management and collaboration profile: virtual companies and industrial platforms in the high‐tech biotechnology industries

In this paper we discuss collaboration in the area of technology management. We propose the concept of collaboration profile to describe various forms of networks along key differentiating characteristics. The collaboration profile is then applied using two examples to illustrate different forms of collaboration in the biotechnology industries, the ‘virtual company’ and the ‘industrial platform’. Based on interviews with members of a virtual company as well as members of industrial platforms and drawing conclusions from theoretical insights, the advantages and disadvantages of these forms and their suitability for different stages of the technology life cycle will be discussed. Specifically, we address the following questions: What kind of collaboration profile applies to virtual companies and industrial platforms? How does the suitability of collaboration forms vary with the stage of technology development? Furthermore, we demonstrate the usefulness of the collaboration profile for analysing features and potential problems of collaborations by describing two examples. Focusing on the key characteristics of a collaboration helps to check the appropriateness of the collaboration form and to identify and manage respective problems.     

When Should RD&E and Marketing Collaborate? The Moderating Role of Exploration–Exploitation and Environmental Uncertainty

Collaboration between research, development, and engineering (RD&E) and marketing has traditionally been regarded as beneficial for new product performance (NPP). However, some studies have pointed out the drawbacks of excessive collaboration. Because collaboration simultaneously presents costs and benefits that vary with conditions, a contingent view of managerial practices suggests that the optimal level of integration should vary according to some factors that indicate when high levels of collaboration are preferable to lower levels. Although the literature on the many different factors that may impact the desirable level of collaboration is abundant, only a few studies have investigated the role of the peculiar characteristics of the new products being developed. This is at odds with several calls for future research on the role of the characteristics of the new product. This paper investigates the moderating role of an explorative versus an exploitive innovation program. It also controls for the moderating role of environmental uncertainty, which has been traditionally considered a moderator of the relationship between RD&E–marketing collaboration and new product program performance. The paper also investigates how a firm's innovation posture—a cultural trait—influences both directly and indirectly, via marketing's technical knowledge, RD&E–marketing collaboration. Indeed, several scholars have recognized that cultural differences create the main barrier between RD&E and marketing. Hence, a firm's culture should have an impact on the cultural barriers between the two departments. Further, the firm's innovation posture affects the extent to which the departments have to share resources and exchange information. In their seminal work, Gupta, Raj, and Wilemon argue that resource dependency is the main factor affecting the integration achieved between RD&E and marketing. Hence, an analysis of a firm's innovation posture is required to gain a deeper understanding of the antecedents of the collaboration between the two departments. The antecedents and effects of RD&E–marketing collaboration are tested in a sample of 80 companies operating in the U.S. auto industry through partial least squares. The paper shows that the extent to which a company develops explorative rather than exploitative innovations is a better moderator than environmental uncertainty in the relationship between RD&E–marketing collaboration and new product program performance. This contradicts much previous literature and sheds light on a partially neglected construct in the new product development literature. Second, the paper demonstrates that firms with a more aggressive innovation posture tend to develop greater collaboration between RD&E and marketing. Also, the marketing department tends to have a better understanding of the RD&E processes and capabilities in companies with an aggressive innovation posture than in companies with a defensive one.