Leveraging internal resources and external business networks for new product success: A dynamic capabilities perspective

Internal resources such as technological and human capital, together with a firm's business network, are vital sources of knowledge for new product development. Previous studies largely assume that a firm's internal resources and its external resources embedded in a business network are complementary in new product development. This study draws on the dynamic capabilities perspective to take the existing literature one step further. Our hypotheses were tested using a sample of 130 Chinese manufacturing firms in high-technology industries. Interestingly, the findings reveal a more complex picture of resource interplay between internal resources and external resources embedded in a firm's business network. More specifically, the findings show that a firm's power in its business network influences the effect of its internal resources on its ability to sense and seize opportunities, a vital dynamic capability. More importantly, the findings suggest that such dynamic capability plays a pivotal role in translating the benefits of resource-interplay into new product success.     

Getting the most out of cross-functional cooperation: Internal structural change as a trigger for customer information use

Using customer information in the decision making of R&D and production is vital for industrial firms to survive and prosper in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Previous studies show that cross-functional cooperation may have both negative and positive effects on information use. The authors hypothesize that internal structural change positively moderates the relationship between cross-functional cooperation and information use. However, structural change also decreases the quality of cross-functional cooperation. Cross-functional knowledge increases both cross-functional cooperation and customer information use. These hypotheses are tested and supported using a data set consisting of 221 manufacturing and R&D managers in large industrial firms. The findings imply that although internal structural change increases the benefits of cooperative, cross-functional relationships in terms of customer information use, managers in volatile organizations should continue to strengthen cooperative relationships by maintaining and improving sales and marketing contact people's knowledge of manufacturing and R&D.     

The contingent value of exploratory and exploitative learning for new product development performance

This study endeavors to extend research on organizational learning by investigating the complicated effects between exploratory — exploitative learning and new product performance in a single new product project. Specifically, premised on contingency theory the authors investigate the negative nonlinear and interaction effects of project-level exploratory and exploitative learning behaviors on product development performance, and examine internal organizational and external environmental factors to recognize their differential moderating effects between the two learning behaviors and new product performance. Most of the hypotheses are supported based on questionnaire survey results of 253 new product projects. The results indicate that the two type of learning have curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) effects on new product performance, and suggest that product development performance will be enhanced when one learning is at higher level and the other is at lower level. Furthermore, the authors discover that process-based reward, encouragement to take risk, and environment dynamics strengthened the benefits of exploratory on new product performance. On the other hand, the advantages of exploitative learning on new product performance is further enhanced when output-based reward, project development formalization, and environment competitiveness is high. Finally, this study suggests that project managers should pay careful attention to employ the two learning behaviors during new product development.     

Learning Capability,Technological Parity,and Innovation Mode Use*

The purpose of this research was to examine whether a firm's learning capability interacts with industry technological parity to predict innovation mode use. Learning capability is conceptualized in the current research as a firm's ability to develop or acquire the new knowledge‐based resources and skills needed to offer new products. Industry technological parity is conceptualized as the extent to which similarity and equality exist among the technological competencies of the firms in an industry. Three generic modes of innovation are considered: internal, cooperative, and external innovation. These modes reflect the development of new products based solely on internal resources, the collaborative development of new products (i.e., with one or more development partners), and the acquisition of fully developed products from external sources, respectively. The premises of this research are that (1) technological parity can create incentives or disincentives for innovating in a particular mode, depending upon the value of external innovative resources relative to the value of internal innovative resources and (2) firms will choose innovation modes that reflect a combination of their abilities and incentives to innovate alone, with others, or through others. Survey research and secondary sources were used to collect data from 119 high‐technology firms. Results indicate that firms exhibit greater use of internal and external innovation when high levels of industry technological parity are matched by high levels of firm learning capability. By contrast, a negative relationship between learning capability and industry technological parity is associated with greater use of the cooperative mode of innovation. Thus, a single, common internal capability—learning capability—interacts with the level of technological parity in the environment to significantly predict three distinct innovation modes—modes that are not inherently dependent upon one another. As such, a firm's internal ability to innovate, as reflected in learning capability, has relevance well beyond that firm's likely internal innovation output. It also predicts the firm's likely use of cooperative and external innovation when considered in light of the level of industry technological parity. A practical implication of these findings is that companies with modest learning capabilities are not inherently precluded from innovating. Rather, they can innovate through modes for which conditions in their current environments do not constitute significant obstacles to innovation output. In particular, modest learning capabilities are associated with higher innovative output in the internal, cooperative, and external modes when industry technological parity levels are low, high, and low, respectively. Conversely, strong learning capabilities tend to be associated with higher innovative output in the internal, cooperative, and external modes when industry technological parity levels are high, low, and high, respectively.     

De‐escalation Mechanisms in High‐technology Product Innovation

Many decision‐makers struggle to reduce commitment to failing endeavors. While de‐escalation mechanisms have been documented and tested in information technology, accounting, psychology, and organizational behavior, little work has addressed de‐escalation in innovation. This study identifies and examines the applicability of de‐escalation mechanisms specifically in new product development (NPD) projects. Initially, we conducted an extensive literature review to identify de‐escalation mechanisms found in research across different academic disciplines. Subsequently, we conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews to gather primary data. In total, using a sample of organizations that compete in high‐technology industries, 31 managers and engineers in 15 NPD projects that were terminated prior to completion were interviewed regarding mechanisms used to de‐escalate commitment to failing new product innovation projects. Several mechanisms reportedly used for innovation projects parallel those identified in the previous literature. More importantly, the authors uncover novel and previously undocumented ways to discontinue or redirect poorly performing projects. Specifically, internal competitions, feature‐level de‐escalation, continual assumption assessment, benchmarking, roadmaps, and comprehensive product testing are particularly well suited for innovation projects. These findings extend the body of extant literature on de‐escalation of commitment to include innovation, notably in high‐technology settings. The study also highlights that organizations may want to accept or even encourage failure, thereby increasing the efficacy of resource use. Implications for further research and practice are offered.     

Creating Dynamic Capability: The Role of Intertemporal Integration, Knowledge Retention, and Interpretation

Uncertainty about the ability for technological knowledge to be transformed to meet market demands, lack of complementary technologies, the lack of developed markets for a given technical feature, and other types of uncertainty add significant challenges to organizations as they develop products for future markets. In spite of these significant challenges, some organizations develop a dynamic capability in new product development that becomes a powerful source of competitive advantage and a source of renewal, growth, and adaptation as the environment changes. Many approaches to new product development (e.g., cross‐functional development teams, quality function deployment, early supplier involvement, heavyweight product development teams) address the need to integrate knowledge more rapidly and effectively within projects. These approaches do not address, however, how knowledge is integrated over time or how integration of knowledge from previous new product development efforts influences the firm's new product development performance. This study focuses on providing a greater understanding of the integrative practices that contribute to this capability in new product development. Based on insights from the innovation and learning literatures, this study proposes relationships about the influence of knowledge retention and interpretation activities on the organization's ability to integrate knowledge developed in prior new product development projects and on new product development performance. Data collected from a sample of new product development professionals are employed to test the proposed relationships among knowledge retention, knowledge interpretation, integration of prior knowledge, and new product development performance. The findings suggest that knowledge retention and interpretation activities positively impact a firm's new product development performance. In particular, practices that enable the retention and interpretation of knowledge improve new product development performance indirectly through the firm's enhanced ability to apply knowledge developed in prior product development projects to subsequent projects. Practices that enable the interpretation of knowledge in the firm's current strategic context also improve new product development performance directly. These findings lead to important implications for managing new product development.     

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.     

Client dependence and vendor innovation: The moderating role of organizational culture

With the dramatic increase in technological interconnectedness between firms and the overall speed of technological change, organizations depend on each other to survive and stay competitive. While it is generally believed that dyads and networks can offer advantages over internal development in the innovation process, the authors suggest that it is not necessarily the case. Using a sample of 120 vendor firms that work in information technology industries in the Indian subcontinent, they find that client dependence in the inter-organizational relationship decreases vendor innovation. To resolve this dark side of business relationships, they further examine how the organizational culture can impact the dependence-innovation relationship. In line with organization literature, the authors distinguish two sub-dimensions of outcome-oriented culture: performance orientation, which reflects a firm's internal focus on employee performance, and competitiveness, which reflects a firm's focus on external competitors and markets. It is found that a vendor's competitiveness facilitates innovation, and that it weakens the negative effect of client dependence on vendor innovation. However, performance orientation strengthens the negative effect of client dependence on vendor innovation. Accordingly, in order to prevent themselves from falling into the dependence trap in the innovation process, firms need to build an externally oriented competitive culture and avoid overemphasizing their internal performance.     

A dynamic capabilities-based framework of organizational sensemaking through combinative capabilities towards exploratory and exploitative product innovation in turbulent environments

This study develops a dynamic capabilities-based framework of organizational sensemaking through combinative capabilities towards exploratory and exploitative product innovation. Organizational sensemaking helps organizations develop cognitive maps of turbulent environments through its construction of shared interpretations of environmental changes. We argue, however, that successful exploratory and exploitative product innovation are not guaranteed by organizational sensemaking alone, but instead depend on how firms' capabilities synergistically combine and transform knowledge resources. Organizational sensemaking and combinative capabilities are together positioned as important dynamic capabilities. The dynamic capabilities-based framework is applied to explain why and how organizational sensemaking determining superior exploratory and exploitative product innovation in turbulent environments is realized by combinative capabilities. Furthermore, the paper examines the differential effects of combinative capabilities on the firm's exploratory versus exploitative product innovation. Firms can better understand how to leverage different type of combinative capabilities for optimal outcomes.     

Development of Novel Products Through Intraorganizational and Interorganizational Networks

The pendulum appears to be swinging away from the merger mania of the 1980s, with many leaner-and meaner organizations refocusing on their core competencies. However, these more focused organizations often lack the breadth of skills and expertise necessary for developing products and services which cut across traditional technological and marketing boundaries. Complex product systems such as those under development in the home automation industry include elements from such disparate sectors as consumer electronics, telecommunications, construction, and energy. A narrow focus may prevent the novel forms of innovation necessary for successful development of such products. Using the home automation industry as an example, Joe Tidd examines the challenges involved in the development of complex product systems. When products and services cut across traditional marketing and technological boundaries, radical innovation is difficult because different firms and industries are typically responsible for developing the various subsystems and components. Successful development efforts may require novel forms of innovation–for example, architectural innovation and technology fusion. Architectural innovation involves changes in the way the components of a product are linked together, but leaves the core design concepts untouched. Technology fusion creates new products and market opportunities through the blending of diverse technologies from various fields. Two organizational factors affect a firm's ability to develop and commercialize new products based on novel forms of innovation: the internal organization of the firm, and the firm's links with other organizations, including suppliers, customers, and networks of collaborating organizations. Within a firm, the development of complex product systems is likely to require managing across traditional product-division boundaries. The breadth of competencies required may necessitate strong interfirm linkages. Comparing organizational approaches and the networks of alliances for home automation in the United States, Europe, and Japan, it appears that European firms tend to be more narrowly focused then American and Japanese firms. A rigid focus on core competencies may cause these European firms to overlook the potential for new products. Because various technologies and industries are involved, open networks are more effective than closed networks or alliances. European and American firms tend to favor closed strategic alliances, while Japanese firms typically participate in open networks and overlapping consortia. This approach gives Japanese firms an edge in the home automation industry.     

Selecting Influential Business-to-Business Customers in New Product Development: Relational Embeddedness and Knowledge Heterogeneity Considerations

This study examines how the most influential business‐to‐business (B2B) customers, both existing and potential, involved in providing input to a new product development (NPD) project influence new product advantage. As the relational literature suggests, involving customers who have had close and embedded relationships with a firm's new product organization, such as a firm's largest customers, and customers who have been involved in past collaborative activities, should lead to the development of superior products. To the contrary, the innovation literature suggests that a firm may become too close to its large, embedded customers resulting in less innovation and in lower performing products. Also, the relationship between the heterogeneity of the knowledge of the most influential customers and new product advantage is examined. A contingency perspective is hypothesized such that the degree of product newness sought in the project moderates the effects of both relational embeddedness and knowledge heterogeneity on new product advantage. Empirical findings from a sample of 137 NPD projects support this contingency view. For projects seeking to develop incremental products, where the product being developed is an extension or an enhancement to an existing product, new product advantage tended to be higher in projects using embedded or homogeneous customers. For incremental projects, projects using less‐embedded or heterogeneous customers tended to have lower product performance. For projects following a highly innovative product strategy, new product advantage tended to be higher in projects that involved heterogeneous customers. These heterogeneous customers provided NPD projects with a diversity of perspectives, competencies, and experiences that fostered significant product innovations. The study contributes to the literature by empirically testing relational and innovation theories in NPD projects and by providing evidence on the importance of relational embeddedness and knowledge heterogeneity in selecting influential customers in NPD projects.     

An Exploratory Model of Interpersonal Cohesiveness in New Product Development Teams

There has been a heavy emphasis in new product development (NPD) research on intrateam issues such as communication, trust, and conflict management. Interpersonal cohesiveness, however, has received scant attention. In addition, there are conflicting findings regarding the effects of close‐knit teams, which seem to have a beneficial effect up to a point, after which the tight bond becomes a detriment. This paper addresses these issues by introducing an exploratory model of interpersonal cohesiveness→NPD performance that includes antecedents, consequences, and moderating factors. Antecedents of interpersonal cohesiveness include clan culture, formalization, integration, and political dominance of one department, while consequences are groupthink, superordinate identity, and, ultimately, external/internal new product (NP) performance. The relationships among interpersonal cohesiveness, groupthink, and superordinate identity appear to be influenced by two moderating factors: team norms and goal support. Additionally, product type is identified as a moderator on the effects of both groupthink and superordinate identity on external NP performance. The model is built from two sources: a synthesis of the literature in small group dynamics and NPD, and qualitative research conducted across 12 NPD teams. Individual team leaders were interviewed first, followed by interviews with two additional members on each team, for a total of 36 interviews. In keeping with the goals of qualitative research, the interviews and analysis were used to identify and define aspects of interpersonal cohesiveness rather than to test a preconceived model. Representation of different industries and product types was sought intentionally, and variance in NP innovativeness as well as in NP market success/profitability became key criteria in sample selection. The exploratory model and propositions developed in this study provide a framework for understanding the role of interpersonal cohesiveness in NPD teams and its direct and indirect effects on NP performance. Although a significant amount of research on cohesiveness has been conducted in previous studies of small groups, the narrow laboratory settings of that research have limited the generalizability of the findings. This study therefore serves as a useful starting point for future theory development involving interpersonal cohesiveness in NPD. It also provides a guide for managers in dealing with team cohesiveness.     

New Product Strategies of Large, Dominant Product Manufacturing Firms: An Exploratory Analysis

Although researchers have expended considerable effort exploring the links between new product strategy and firm-level performance, most studies of this subject focus on small- to medium-sized firms. Compared to smaller firms, however, large companies typically maintain broader portfolios of products and have easier access to capital markets. Such fundamental differences suggest the need for closer examination of the relationship between new product strategy and the performance of large firms. Based on a study of 459 new products introduced during a 5-year period, Richard W. Firth and V. K. Narayanan profile the new product strategies of 18 large companies. They examine the methods used to acquire new products (internal development or external sources) as well as three dimensions of each firm's new product introductions: newness of embodied technology, newness of market application, and innovativeness in the market. In other words, these profiles identify the degree to which a firm's new product introductions involve core technologies and markets that are new to the firm, as well as the degree to which the market views these products as innovative. Because new product strategy is an investment decision, the study also examines the relationship between these strategic profiles and two facets of firm-level performance: risk and return. The study identifies five archetypes of new product strategy: Innovators, who produce innovative products by using their existing resources; Investors in Technology, who focus on expanding their technological base. Searching for New Markets, firms that venture into unfamiliar markets by introducing products closely aligned with those in their existing portfolios; Business as Usual, firms that rely on existing technologies and products to serve existing markets; and Middle-of-the-Road, firms content to introduce new products rated as low to moderate along all three dimensions of the strategic profile. For new products closely aligned with their core markets and technologies, the firms in this study typically rely on internal development. To introduce products involving new technologies or market applications, they turn to acquisition from external sources. Firms that emphasized market innovativeness in their new product introductions enjoyed higher returns than less innovative firms. And contrary to conventional wisdom, they gained this advantage without an accompanying increase in risk. In other words, continual innovation might provide a large firm with the means for achieving higher returns without higher risk.     

Organizational Culture and Innovation: A Meta‐Analytic Review

The relationship of organizational culture and innovation has been subject to extensive research over the last decades. The multitude of cultural variables under investigation has led to a fragmented concept of culture for innovation, and an inclusion into management theory is still missing. Further, managerial practice requires an underlying structure in order to decide what culture should be implemented in order to foster innovation, and to assess if a specific culture is an effective and efficient coordination instrument. Hence, a framework is needed which allows classification of cultural values without residuals, to draw expedient comparisons with reference to the criteria by which they are grouped, and to assess their relationship with organizational innovation. This meta‐analysis, which comprises 43 studies with a combined sample size of 6341 organizations, reveals that Quinn and Rohrbaugh's Competing Values Framework provides a meaningful structure for the ideational aspects of organizational culture. The Competing Values Framework describes value systems based on two main dimensions. Those two pairs of opposing values are flexibility versus control and internal versus external orientation. The analysis shows that the congruence of different cultures with organizational goals of innovation can be described based on that framework. Control theory is used to explain the relationship of organizational culture and innovation. While culture describes the ideational aspects of organizational values, clan control describes their coordinative effect. Managers may choose different clan control strategies according to the Competing Values Framework. They will most likely follow the strategy that provides a high level of congruence between the goals of management and the goals of their organization's social system. Individuals that have internalized the organizational values apply them as a form of self‐control. Those values will also be applied in groups, such as product development teams. While development teams may be formed and disbanded with certain projects and individuals may leave the company, the organization forms the steady frame of those activities. The cumulative data confirms the hypothesis that managers of innovative organizations most likely implement a developmental culture, which emphasizes an external and a flexibility orientation. Yet also group and rational cultures are to a certain extent consistent with the goals of an innovative organization and may thus be appropriate social control strategies. Hierarchical cultures emphasize control and an internal orientation and are less likely to be found in innovative organizations. A moderator analysis of the culture–innovation relationship revealed that it is not influenced by the differentiation between radical and incremental innovation, and only weak evidence exists for an influence of innovation adoption versus innovation generation. A potential reason is that those organizations that are geared toward innovation will pursue it consequently, without differentiating between different kinds of innovation. Therefore, managers that follow a (radical) innovation strategy should establish a developmental culture in their organization. If innovation rather represents a minor aspect of the firm's long‐term objectives, the efficiency‐oriented rational culture or a group culture may also be the right choice.     

Building product diversification through contractual R&D agreements

Firms engage in contractual R&D agreements for several reasons, including product innovation motives, firm performance goals, and technological diversification. This article demonstrates that firms also might enter into external collaborations to penetrate new markets. This study therefore explores both the effects and the strategic risks of contractual R&D agreements and their related knowledge structures for a firm's capacity to diversify into new markets. Drawing on a novel panel data set obtained from 102 Fortune high‐tech firms, the authors demonstrate that strategic alliances enable knowledge‐integrated firms to penetrate new businesses; however, these organizations should be cautious about engaging in licensing‐in agreements, which have negative effects on product diversification.     

Antecedents and Consequences of Cross-Functional Cooperation: A Comparison of R&D, Manufacturing, and Marketing Perspectives

By breaking down the walls among the R&D, manufacturing, and marketing functions, techniques such as concurrent engineering and quality function deployment can pave the way to more effective new product development (NPD). Recognizing the benefits of such cross-functional efforts, practitioners and researchers have examined the interrelationships among various groups in the NPD process, paying particularly close attention to the R&D–marketing interface. However, manufacturing also plays an important role in NPD. Consequently, any thorough exploration of the relationship between cross-functional cooperation and NPD success must consider manufacturing's perspective. X. Michael Song, Mitzi M. Montoya-Weiss, and Jeffrey B. Schmidt provide such a balanced perspective in a study of cross-functional cooperation during NPD in Mexican high-tech firms. Notwithstanding the differing functional goals, objectives, and reward systems present in R&D, manufacturing and marketing, they hypothesize that all three functions recognize that successful NPD requires crossfunctional cooperation. In particular, they expect that representatives of these three functional groups will share similar perceptions, regarding both the drivers and the consequences of cross-functional cooperation. The survey results support the hypothesis that R&D, manufacturing, and marketing professionals share the same perceptions, regarding the drivers and the consequences of cross-functional cooperation. Respondents from all three groups view internal facilitators as the drivers of cross-functional cooperation. In other words, regardless of their functional area, the survey respondents believe that the strongest, most direct effects on cross-functional cooperation and NPD performance come from a firm's evaluation criteria, reward structures, and management expectations. Respondents perceive these internal facilitators as having a greater effect on cross-functional cooperation than that of external forces such as market competitiveness and technological change. In fact, contrary to expectations, the respondents do not view these external forces as having a significant effect on cross-functional cooperation or NPD performance. And contrary to persistent reports about friction between technical and nontechnical personnel, all three groups perceive a strong, positive relationship between cross-functional communication and NPD performance.     

Getting More from Cross‐Functional Fairness and Product Innovativeness: Contingency Effects of Internal Resource and Conflict Management

This research investigates how organizations' internal resource and conflict management influence the relationship between cross‐functional fairness and product innovativeness. It considers two contextual dimensions of both internal resource management (job rotation and internal rivalry) and conflict‐handling mechanisms (integrating and avoiding) as key components of the firm's ability to convert fair interactions, across departments, into product innovativeness. The tests of the study's hypotheses, based on a sample of more than 200 Canadian‐based firms, confirm that the cross‐functional fairness–product innovativeness relationship is amplified at higher levels of job rotation and integrative conflict handling but suppressed at higher levels of internal rivalry and avoidance of conflict handling. The authors discuss the study's implications and future research directions.     

The Impact of Organizational Integration and Product Development Proficiency on Market Success

This research investigates three major hypotheses important to new product market success: the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater the market success; the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater new product development proficiency; and the greater new product development proficiency, the greater the market success. “Organizational integration” is defined as the degree of cooperation and communication between internal and external NPD “support” groups and NPD teams. “NPD process proficiency” is defined as how well new product development stages and the new product development process as a whole is performed. “New product market success” is represented by four measures: the degree to which profits and sales exceeded or fell short of what was expected, and the degree to which the new product was perceived to exceed or fall short of expectations related to entering existing and new markets. Information was obtained concerning the most and least successful new products of U.S. firms in the medical instruments, the electrical equipment, and the heavy construction equipment industries. The field survey approach was utilized in which surveys were mailed to recipients such as new product development managers who already had been designated by executives of the sample firms. Several important findings were uncovered during this research. Overall organizational integration was found to be significantly associated with new product market success. Internal integration, the coordination between new product development teams and functional departments, was found to be significantly related to product market success. A significant relationship between new product development proficiency during the NPD “post-launch stage” and the degree of integration between an NPD team and external NPD organizations, such as customers and suppliers, was detected. During the post-launch stage, new product development proficiency also was found to be significantly related to new product market success. These findings suggest several important implications for new product development managers and scholars.     

农业经营组织演化的经济学解释

对农业经营组织演化的经济学机理进行了系统梳理和分析。研究表明：农业生产特性使得公司化和集体化模式面临高监督和组织协调成本,中国农村土地安排的社会保障功能,使得农业家庭经营具有一定的合理性。然而,农业家庭经营本身难以克服农业资本和技术服务约束、市场准入困难和市场风险威胁,农业经营正在经历一个组织化的过程。“公司＋农户”在克服市场进入障碍和降低市场风险的同时,面临着由于合同不完全性、不公平性和机会主义导致的合约不稳定窘境;农户合作社通过农户之间的合作,能够克服农户资本和技术服务农业生产约束,通过组织化农户与企业签定合约,提升了契约稳定性,但传统的农户合作存在“搭便车”等内在缺陷,限制了服务的规模,必须进行内部制度创新,向新一代合作社演化。农业经营的外部环境和内在技术变化,必然会引起农业组织本身的变化,农业经营组织演化的经济因素和演化方向,是值得进一步关注的问题。     

Managing liquidity in research‐intensive firms: signaling and cash flow effects of patents and alliance activities

The effective holding and management of liquid assets is critical to success in research‐intensive industries. The primary output of invention is new knowledge. However, because of its ‘sticky’ characteristics, knowledge may not easily diffuse to external shareholders, leading to knowledge asymmetries between managers/employees and external suppliers of capital. Many valuable R&D projects may thus fail to attract external financing, limiting a firm's ability to invest in R&D. In this study, we examine how the cash flow and signaling properties of a firm's patents and certain aspects of its alliance strategy can attenuate such problems. Specifically, we suggest that a firm's R&D investments positively predict the level of its liquid asset holdings. This is due to the fact that invention‐induced knowledge asymmetries increase the firm's cost of accessing external liquid capital. However, holding cash entails opportunity costs. In this regard, we also find that patent production and certain alliance activities provide important signaling mechanisms, which reduce knowledge asymmetries between the firm and capital markets, and consequently lower the firm's need to hold liquid assets. Empirical tests were conducted using a sample of 108 U.S‐based biotechnology firms. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.