Knowing when to leap: Transitioning between exploitative and explorative R&D

A common perspective is that consistent R&D investment facilitates innovation, while volatile spending implies myopic decision making. However, the benefits to exploiting extant competencies eventually erode, so firms must disrupt their R&D function and explore for new competitive advantage. We suggest that high‐performing firms recognize when extant competencies decline and increase exploratory R&D to develop new competencies at the appropriate time. We find that changes in R&D expenditure away from the firm's historic trend, in either direction, are indicative of transitions between exploitative and exploratory R&D and are associated with increased firm performance. Increases in R&D expenditure above the trend are associated with an increased likelihood of highly cited patents, suggesting that firms are making the leap between R&D‐based exploitation and exploration. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control system approach

Research on how managers control R&D activities has tended to focus on the performance measurement systems used to exploit existing knowledge and capabilities. This focus has been at the expense of how broader forms of management control could be used to enable R&D contextual ambidexterity, the capacity to attain appropriate levels of exploitation and exploration behaviors in the same R&D organizational unit. In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework for understanding how different types of control system, guided by different R&D strategic goals, can be used to induce and balance both exploitation and exploration. We illustrate the elements of this framework and their relations using data from biotechnology firms, and then discuss how the framework provides a basis to empirically examine a number of important control relationships and phenomena.     

Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration,exploitation, and R&D project performance

Although one tenet in the alliance literature is that firms learn from prior experience, we posit that any potential learning effects depend on the type of experience. In particular, we hypothesize that alliance exploitation experience has positive effects on R&D project performance, while alliance exploration experience has negative effects. We further posit that an internal exploration competence allows firms to leverage their external exploitation experience more fully. In contrast, when firms combine internal exploitation experience with external exploration experience, the negative effects on R&D project performance become more pronounced. To test this integrative model of organizational learning, we leverage a unique and detailed dataset of 412 R&D projects in biotechnology conducted by large pharmaceutical companies between 1980 and 2000. Using a competing risk event history model predicting successful product approval versus project termination, we find support for our theoretical model. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How does the second-order learning process moderate the relationship between innovation inputs and outputs of large Korean firms?

We investigate how the second-order learning process moderates the relationship between innovation performance and two types of knowledge seeking behavior, namely exploration and exploitation. We reinvestigate the second-order learning process of the top 100 Korean firms from 1997 to 2007 by capturing CEO turnover, board turnover, and R&D alliances. We argue that the current findings about exploration and exploitation should be reclassified in terms of innovation input and output. We suggest that researchers investigate the organizational learning process to understand the link between innovation inputs and outputs. Our empirical results show that while innovation inputs are not related to exploratory outputs, the second-order learning process reshapes the relationship between both exploration/exploitation type innovation inputs and exploratory innovation outputs, and that the new focus of organizational learning process can refine current innovation literature.     

How exploitation impedes and impels exploration: Theory and evidence

Research summary : This study suggests that strategy and organizational scholars seeking to analyze the impact of exploitation on exploration would benefit by moving away from the generally assumed unitary perspective on exploitation. Specifically, we propose a multifaceted perspective on exploitation by theoretically and empirically distinguishing between repetitive exploitation versus incremental exploitation. We argue that repetitive exploitation can impede exploration and delay firms' responses to environmental changes, while incremental exploitation can impel exploration and accelerate firms' responses to environmental changes. We test our arguments using extensive longitudinal data from the hard disk drive (HDD) industry, and our supportive empirical findings highlight the relevance of our distinction between the two types of exploitation and their very different effects on exploration. Managerial summary : This study offers a solution to the puzzle of why many believe firms cannot excel at advancing existing practices and developing new initiatives, typically described as the trade‐off between exploitation and exploration. We introduce the distinction between repetitive and incremental exploitation and show that only the former type of innovation generates rigidity toward exploration, whereas the latter actually promotes exploration. More specifically, our evidence from the hard disk drive industry shows that those firms emphasizing incremental innovation (as opposed to repetition of their existing practices) were most likely to remain explorative over time, whereas firms emphasizing more repetitive innovation proved less open to changes. We discuss the implications of our findings as suggesting that firms seeking to optimize their innovativeness over the long term should strive to remain active in incrementally innovating their existing practices. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Exploration,exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations

The literature suggests that established firms need to balance their exploration and exploitation activities in order to achieve superior performance. Yet, previous empirical research has modeled this balance as the interaction of orthogonal activities. In this study, we show that there is a trade‐off between exploration and exploitation and that the optimal balance between exploration and exploitation depends upon environmental conditions. Using a novel methodology to measure the relative exploration versus exploitation orientation, we find an inverted U‐shaped relationship between the relative share of explorative orientation and financial performance. This relationship is positively moderated by the R&D intensity of the industry in which the firm operates. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Diversity of Board Interlocks and the Impact on Technological Exploration: A Longitudinal Study

Scholars have given increased attention to organizational networks as an important component of technological innovation. Although a significant body of research has examined the implications of organizational networks on knowledge diffusion, researchers know little about the impacts that diverse network interlocks have on corporate innovation outputs. To address this gap in the literature, this article draws upon insights from organizational learning and social network theory and argues that interlocked networks affect corporate innovation. Further, interlocks differ in terms of both the heterogeneity of tied‐to firms—ties created through shared board directors—and the directors who create these ties. Accordingly, this study proposes that more diverse interlocks will have a greater impact on corporate technological exploration. To test this proposal, data from multiple sources were analyzed, including historical records of board appointments and data on technological innovations from U.S. public companies. Empirical results from generalized estimating equations suggest that the industrial diversity of interlocked firms increases the likelihood of technological exploration. Moreover, interlocks with R&D‐intensive firms are more important for technological exploration than those created by firms that do not invest heavily in R&D. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating that the ratio of interlocks created by directors with output‐oriented experience enhances technological exploration. Overall, this research reveals that diversity of leader‐created board interlocks can be an important mechanism for fostering corporate entrepreneurial activities such as technological exploration.     

Creating incentives for innovation? The relationship between pay dispersion in R&D groups and firm innovation performance

Innovation is a critical organizational outcome for its potential to generate competitive advantage. While the contribution of knowledge workers to the generation of innovation is widely recognized, little is known about how organizational incentive mechanisms stimulate or inhibit these workers' behaviors that promote innovation. This study examines the relationship between pay dispersion in R&D groups and firm innovation using employee‐level compensation data in US high‐technology firms. The results show that (1) pay dispersion in R&D groups is negatively related to firm innovation and (2) this negative relationship is alleviated in firms with greater financial slack. This study contributes to the innovation literature by illuminating the implications of organizational incentive systems for successful innovation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The impact of R&D‐specific factors on the attractiveness of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises as partners vis‐à‐vis alliance formation in large emerging economies

This study examines the impact of research and development (R&D)‐specific factors in determining the likelihood of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) from developed countries to be attractive partners vis‐à‐vis forming alliances with SMEs from large emerging economies (LEEs). This study is founded on the knowledge‐accessing theory of alliance formation, which emphasises the higher efficiency gains of knowledge application as opposed to knowledge generation. We extend this theory to SMEs on the basis that smaller firms, because of their resources constraints and drive to survive, are likely to use alliances to access external knowledge bases leading to new product development (NPD) opportunities because of the low feasibility of acquiring knowledge. As a mix of complex knowledge is necessary to develop most modern products and services, SMEs are also likely to adopt a more flexible operational approach and to accept compromises to forge knowledge‐accessing alliances. We illustrate this theoretical development using primary data collected from British and German biotechnology SMEs, declaring the intention prospectively to form alliances with their counterparts in Brazil. Binary logistic regression was used to identify the factors influencing the likelihood of a firm as an attractive alliance partner. Our results indicate that R&D‐specific factors influence the likelihood of firms to be attractive alliance partners. In particular, firms showing an in‐house innovation history focused on one or few products are more likely to be attractive alliance partners with LEE firms than those that do not. Another R&D‐specific predictor that enhances the chances of alliance partner attractiveness with LEE firms is the firm's focused searching and identifying capability relative to technology or equipment that demonstrates good prospects to improve the firm's line of products. A third predictor refers to the firm's awareness regarding non‐cost obstacles for its own technological development. Implications for policy makers and practitioners are also discussed.     

How to counteract the suppression of exploration in publicly traded corporations

Top management teams frequently overemphasize efforts to exploit the current product portfolio, even in the face of the strong need to step up exploration activities. This mismanagement of the balance between explorative R&D activities and exploitation of the current product portfolio can result in the so‐called success trap, the situation where explorative activities are fully suppressed. The success trap constitutes a serious threat to the long‐term viability of a firm. Recent studies of publicly traded corporations suggest that the suppression of exploration arises from the interplay among the executive team's myopic forces, the board of directors as gatekeeper of the capital market, and the exploitation–exploration investments and their outcomes. In this paper, system dynamics modeling serves to identify and test ways in which top management teams can counteract this suppression process. For instance, we find that when the executive board is suppressing exploration, the board of directors can still prevent the success trap by actively intervening in the exploitation–exploration strategy.     

An empirical examination of vacillation theory

Research summary : Since Nickerson and Zenger (2002) proposed how vacillation may lead to organizational ambidexterity, large‐sample empirical tests of their theory have been missing. In this paper, we empirically examine the performance implications of vacillation. Building upon vacillation theory, we predict that the frequency and scale of vacillation will have inverted U‐shaped relationships with firm performance. We test our hypotheses using patent‐based measures of exploration and exploitation in the context of technological innovation and knowledge search. Managerial summary : Firms often shift their focus on technological innovation and knowledge search from seeking new and novel knowledge (i.e., exploration) to extending and refining existing knowledge (i.e., exploitation) or vice versa. We examine how the frequency and scale of firms vacillating between exploration and exploitation may affect their performance. We find that both too infrequent or too frequent changes and a too small or too large scale of changes are not desirable. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Make,buy, organize: The interplay between research,external knowledge,and firm structure

We bridge current streams of innovation research to explore the interplay between R&D, external knowledge, and organizational structure—three elements of a firm's innovation strategy, which we argue should logically be studied together. Using within‐firm patent assignment patterns, we develop a novel measure of structure for a large sample of American firms. We find that centralized firms invest more in research, and patent more per R&D dollar, than decentralized firms. Both types access technology via mergers and acquisitions, but their acquisitions differ in terms of frequency, size, and integration. Consistent with our framework, their sources of value creation differ: while centralized firms derive more value from internal R&D, decentralized firms rely more on external knowledge. We discuss how these findings should stimulate more integrative work on theories of innovation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Experience matters: The role of academic scientist mobility for industrial innovation

Research Summary: A learning‐by‐hiring approach is used to scrutinize scientists' mobility in relation to the recruiting firms' subsequent innovation output. Our starting point is that among firm hires, individuals with university research experience—hired from universities or firms—can be particularly valuable. However, conflicting institutional logics between academia and industry makes working with academic scientists challenging at times for firms. We suggest two solutions to this difficulty: hiring “ambidextrous” individuals with a mix of experience of university research and working for a technologically advanced firm, and a strong organizational research culture in the recruiting firm reflected by the presence of a scientist on the top management team. We track the mobility of R&D workers empirically using patent and linked employer‐employee data. Managerial Summary: An important way to make organizations more innovative is hiring individual researchers with the right types of skills and experience. We show that individuals with university research experience beyond their final degree are particularly likely to help boost firm‐level innovation output after hiring compared to R&D workers with other types of skills and experience. However, to obtain good returns to innovation from hiring such individuals, firms need a university research–friendly organizational culture when hiring individuals with university research experience, from either firms or academia.     

Antecedents of Innovation Strategies in New Technology‐based Firms: Interactions between the Environment and Founder Team Composition

This research contributes to the ongoing stream of research on the integration of technical and business knowledge for successful innovation, but does so with a unique focus—that of new firm founder teams. This is in contrast to much of the existing literature, which focuses on organizational units in large firms. As part of their strategy for success, new technology‐based firms need to find an optimal balance between exploration and exploitation in their innovation activities. However, the resource constraints they typically face make it difficult for them to pursue both at the same time, which means that at any given point in time they are likely to opt for either exploration or exploitation rather than both. The purpose of this research is to investigate what influences new technology‐based firms to select one innovation strategy over another. Data collected in 145 new technology‐based firms are used to test hypotheses about how environmental conditions and founder team composition interact in their contributions to choice of innovation strategy. Based on hierarchical regression analysis of the data, the research findings suggest that teams consisting of individuals who have dissimilar backgrounds are more likely to adapt their innovation strategy to the characteristics of the environment than teams of individuals with similar backgrounds. Conversely, teams consisting of individuals with similar backgrounds are more likely to continue to follow their preferred strategy. However, as competitive intensity or environmental dynamism increases, such teams are likely to deviate from their preferred strategy.     

Managing technological transitions through R&D alliances

Technological and market transitions are difficult to manage, and collaborations can be viewed as either resources or constraints in dynamic settings. In the biopharmaceutical industry, a paradigmatic shift in the relevant knowledge bases occurred in the mid‐1990s, inducing a structural change in the network of R&D collaborations. Search and relational strategies oriented toward exploration versus exploitation have prevailed in different phases of the network evolution. Therefore, biotechnology firms have experienced overwhelming difficulties in reorienting their learning strategies throughout paradigmatic shifts and ambidextrous organizations have been able to attain superior performances in terms of stability and centralization in the R&D network.     

Profitability Goals,Control Goals,and the R&D Investment Decisions of Family and Nonfamily Firms

Research and development (R&D) investments can help build sustainable competitive advantages and improve firm performance. Nevertheless, managers also acknowledge the difficulties associated with managing R&D and the low chances of success of innovation programs. For this reason, researchers have long been interested in understanding how managers make R&D investment decisions. Research grounded in the behavioral theory of the firm suggests that a primary driver of R&D investment decisions is profitability: when profitability goals have not been met, managers are more likely to initiate a problemistic search through increasing R&D investments. While emphasizing profitability goals and their relationship with R&D investments, prior research largely downplays the role of goals beyond profitability that exist in a significant number of firms (family firms) that are owned and managed by family members whose primary concern is preserving their control over the organization. Research indicates that these family‐centered noneconomic goals lead family managers to minimize R&D investments and that the coexistence of multiple goals produces highly variable R&D investment behavior. Yet, how family‐centered goals for control and profitability enter decision‐making in family firms is not fully understood. In this study, we propose that family managers form distinctive reference points that capture supplier bargaining power and are used to evaluate the degree of external obstruction to their managerial control. The empirical analysis of panel data on 431 private Spanish manufacturing firms observed over the period 2000–2006 shows that the importance of profitability and control goals follows a sequential logic in family firms, such that family firms react more strongly to increasing supplier bargaining power when their profitability reference points have been reached. This study extends current understanding of the distinctive organizational processes engendered by family management in business organizations leading to new research opportunities at the intersection of the innovation management and family business literatures.     

Market Orientation and R&D Effectiveness in High‐Technology Firms: An Empirical Investigation in the Biotechnology Industry*

There seems to be lack of consensus among informed scholars about the importance a of market orientation for high‐technology firms. This paper gives a comprehensive review of existing empirical studies on the relationship between market orientation and innovation performance and pinpoints two limitations in this research stream that might be at the origin of such controversy. First, extant research often overlooked key innovation outcomes for high‐technology firms, such as those related to research and development (R&D) performance. Second, organizational conditions that can ensure an optimal integration of market knowledge in the innovation process have been less analyzed in the case of these firms. Against this background, the present study contributes to the literature by providing a test of the effect of market orientation on R&D effectiveness and the moderating role of knowledge integration in this relationship, using a sample of Italian biotechnology firms. The study's objectives are addressed in two steps. The first one consists of an in‐depth qualitative study based on semistructured interviews in five biotechnology firms. The second step consists of a follow‐up survey of 50 biotechnology firms. Results from hierarchical multiple regression analysis show that the different dimensions of a market orientation have diverse effects on R&D effectiveness of high‐technology firms: whereas interfunctional coordination has a positive main effect, the effect of customer orientation is moderated by knowledge integration, and competitor orientation has no effect on R&D effectiveness. Post hoc analyses also show two additional results involving a broader set of dependent variables. First, R&D effectiveness mediates the effects of customer orientation and interfunctional coordination on organizational performance. Second, market orientation does not appear to significantly affect R&D efficiency. The present study contributes to current literature in two main respects. First, it adds to previous work on market orientation and innovation by proposing a new dependent variable—R&D effectiveness—which offers a better perspective to understand the impact of market orientation on innovation performance in high‐technology contexts. Second, while part of the current debate on the role of market orientation in high‐tech markets seems to be polarized by positions that sustain its potential drawbacks or, on the contrary, its advantages, this study's findings on the moderating role of knowledge integration shed light on important contingency factors, such as organizational capabilities. The authors discuss the study's limitations and provide directions for future research.     

COLLUSION AND RESEARCH JOINT VENTURES*

I examine the question whether cooperation in R&D among firms producing similar products leads to product market collusion. Suppose that firms engage in a stochastic R&D race while maintaining the collusive equilibrium in a repeated‐game framework. Innovation under non‐cooperative R&D leads to an inter‐firm asymmetry, destabilizing collusion in pre‐discovery and post‐discovery periods. Innovation sharing under cooperative R&D preserves the symmetry and also increases total profit, thereby facilitating collusion. However, welfare may increase with cooperative R&D. I also examine the condition for collusion under licensing and compare the results.     

Configurations of Innovations across Domains: An Organizational Ambidexterity View

How do firms balance explorative and exploitative innovation for superior firm performance? While most prior studies have approached this issue by focusing on technology‐related innovation, the role of balancing exploration and exploitation in other important organizational domains, i.e., marketing, and the interaction effect of ambidexterity across different domains have been overlooked. This study contributes to this line of research by investigating how firms simultaneously balance exploration and exploitation across two critical domains, namely technology innovation and market innovation. The study distinguishes four types of configurations: market leveraging (technology exploration and market exploitation), technology leveraging (technology exploitation and market exploration), pure exploitation (technology exploitation and market exploitation), and pure exploration (technology exploration and market exploration). From an organizational ambidexterity perspective, the current work investigates whether and how these different combinations exert distinctive effects on firm performance. Specifically, the article posits that (a) technology exploration and market exploitation complement each other, and (b) technology exploitation and market exploration also complement each other, such that both market leveraging and technology leveraging strategies have positive effects on firm performance. The article also maintains that such positive relationships are fully mediated by differentiation and low cost advantages. Conversely, it is argued that (c) technology exploration and market exploration conflict with each other, and (d) so do technology exploitation and market exploitation, such that both pure exploration and pure exploitation have negative effects on firm performance. Hypotheses were tested using survey data collected from 292 manufacturing and service firms in China. The results supported most of the hypotheses, except that pure exploration demonstrated no significant relationship with firm performance.     

Product–service innovation and performance: the role of collaborative partnerships and R&D intensity

Treating the intersection of the strategic partnerships, R&D intensity and servitisation literatures, this study explores empirically whether external collaborative service development and provision and industrial R&D intensity help to unpack the complex relation between product–service innovation (servitisation) and performance. We argue that manufacturing firms implementing services benefit from strategic partnerships with Knowledge‐Intensive Business Service (KIBS) firms. KIBS partnering provides opportunities for downsizing, externalising risks and sharing knowledge. Additionally, manufacturers in R&D‐intensive industries are more likely to benefit from implementing service provision than firms in other sectors because of industry dynamics and reduced customer uncertainty. The study surveys executives in 370 large manufacturers worldwide. Results reinforce the importance of concentric strategic partnerships to successful product–service innovation in high R&D industries.