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.     

Product Innovation and Survival in a High-Tech Industry

We investigate the relationship between product innovation and firm survival for a sample of 121 firms in a high-tech industry. We find that location near the technological frontier is an important determinant of firm survival. Firms that are located near the frontier are also more likely to be acquired than to exit by liquidation if they cannot survive as free-standing enterprises. This suggests that product location in the technology space acts as a signal of firm quality. Greater R&D efforts increase the probability of surviving; in the event that the firm does exit, however, its R&D efforts do not significantly influence whether it exits via acquisition or exits via liquidation.     

Inward Technology Licensing as an Alternative to Internal R&D in New Product Development: A Conceptual Framework

Many marketing practitioners and authors already accept that inward technology licensing (ITL) can be a viable alternative source of new products to internal R&D. Yet, new product development research focuses mainly on internal development with little attention to external methods. Kwaku Atuahene-Gima reviews the small body of literature on ITL and examines the factors that may influence a firm to adopt ITL as an alternative to internal R&D. Using a conceptual framework to provide additional insights, he argues that the ITL adoption decision is an organizational behavioral response to internal and external environmental stimuli.     

Organizing for Inbound Open Innovation: How External Consultants and a Dedicated R&D Unit Influence Product Innovation Performance

Firms increasingly acquire technological knowledge from external sources to improve their innovation performance. This strategic approach is known as inbound open innovation. The existing empirical evidence regarding the impact of inbound open innovation on performance, however, is ambiguous. The equivocal results are due to moderating factors that influence a firm's ability to acquire technological knowledge from external sources and to transform it into innovation outputs. This paper focuses on a relevant yet overlooked category of moderating factors: organization of research and development (R&D). It explores two organizational mechanisms: one informal and external‐oriented (involvement of external consultants in R&D activities) and one formalized and internal‐oriented (existence of a dedicated R&D unit), in the acquisition of technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing, a particular contractual form for inbound open innovation. Drawing on a capabilities perspective and using a longitudinal dataset of 841 Spanish manufacturing firms observed over the period 1999–2007, this paper provides a fine‐grained analysis of the moderating effects of the two organizational mechanisms. The involvement of external consultants in R&D activities strengthens the impact of inbound open innovation on innovation performance by increasing marginal benefits of acquiring external technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing. Moreover, it reduces the level of inbound open innovation to which the highest innovation performance corresponds. Instead, the existence of a dedicated R&D unit makes the firm less sensitive to changes in the level of inbound open innovation, by reducing marginal benefits of acquiring external technological knowledge through R&D outsourcing, and increases the level of inbound open innovation to which the highest innovation performance corresponds. The results regarding the role of informal and formalized R&D organizational mechanisms contribute to research on open innovation and absorptive capacity, and also inform managers as to what organizational mechanism is recommended to acquire external technological knowledge, depending on the objectives that the firm pursues.     

Declared essential patents and average total R&D expenditures per patent family

The sharp increase in SEP declarations and declaring firms emphasizes the necessity for understanding firms’ innovation investment behavior in standardization. This paper empirically investigates whether declared standard-essential patents (SEPs) and the declaring firm’s business model (operationalized as a firm’s location in the value chain) are associated with a firm’s innovation investment behavior. To this end, we measure firms’ innovation investment behavior through average total research and development (R&D) expenditures per filed patent family for publicly listed firms from 1999 to 2018. Our sample mainly includes major SEP family declarants. We rely on a binary business model taxonomy differentiating upstream and downstream firms. Within that setting, total R&D expenditures rise with increasing fragmentation of declared SEP families, suggesting that firms adjust their R&D investments to declaration developments in standard-setting organizations (SSOs). We also show that upstream firms have significantly lower total R&D expenditures than downstream firms, which could indicate structural differences in their intellectual property (IP) and R&D management processes. Our results can help SSOs and regulators better understand firms’ innovation investment behavior.     

How to leverage the impact of R&D on product innovation? The moderating effect of management innovation

Although research and development (R&D) is a key indicator of (technological) innovation, scholars have found mixed results regarding its effect on product innovation and firm performance. In this paper, we claim that variations in R&D effectiveness can be explained by changes in a firm’s social system, in particular in its management innovation. It is still unclear how management innovation influences R&D effectiveness in terms of product innovation. In this study, we address this theoretical and empirical gap in the innovation literature. Our theoretical arguments and findings from a large-scale survey among Dutch firms show that R&D has a decreasingly positive relationship with product innovation, particularly for firms with low levels of management innovation. However, in firms with high levels of management innovation, this relationship becomes more J-shaped, especially in small and medium-sized firms. Our findings also appear to indicate that management innovation may be more important for competitive advantage than just R&D. Overall, our insights reveal that management innovation is a key moderator in explaining firms’ effectiveness in transforming R&D into successful product innovation.     

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be too Much of a Good Thing?

R&D collaboration facilitates the pooling of complementary skills, learning from the partner as well as the sharing of risks and costs. Research therefore stresses the positive relationship between collaborative R&D and innovation performance. Fewer studies address the potential drawbacks of collaborative R&D. Collaborative R&D comes at the cost of coordination and monitoring, requires knowledge disclosure, and involves the risk of opportunistic behavior by the partners. Thus, while for lower collaboration intensities the net gains can be high, costs may start to outweigh benefits if firms perform a higher share of their innovation projects collaboratively. For a sample of 2735 firms located in Germany and active in a broad range of manufacturing and service sectors, this study finds that increasing the share of collaborative R&D projects in total R&D projects is associated with a higher probability of product innovation and with a higher market success of new products. While this confirms previous findings on the gains for innovation performance, the results also show that collaboration has decreasing and even negative returns on product innovation if its intensity increases above a certain threshold. Thus, the relationship between collaboration intensity and innovation follows an inverted‐U shape and, on average, costs start to outweigh benefits if a firm pursues more than about two‐thirds of its R&D projects in collaboration. This result is robust to conditioning market success to the introduction of new products and to accounting for the selection into collaborating. This threshold is, however, contingent on firm characteristics. Smaller and younger as well as resource‐constrained firms benefit from relatively higher collaboration intensities. For firms with higher collaboration complexities in terms of different partners and different stages of the R&D process at which collaboration takes place, returns start to decrease already at lower collaboration intensities.     

How do dynamic capabilities transform external technologies into firms’ renewed technological resources? – A mediation model

How externally acquired resources may become valuable, rare, hard-to-imitate, and non-substitute resource bundles through the development of dynamic capabilities? This study proposes and tests a mediation model of how firms’ internal technological diversification and R&D, as two distinctive microfoundations of dynamic technological capabilities, mediate the relationship between external technology breadth and firms’ technological innovation performance, based on the resource-based view and dynamic capability view. Using a sample of listed Chinese licensee firms, we find that firms must broadly explore external technologies to ignite the dynamism in internal technological diversity and in-house R&D, which play their crucial roles differently to transform and reconfigure firms’ technological resources.     

Corporate technology portfolios and R&D performance measures: a study of technology intensive firms

This paper examines the relations between technology portfolio strategies and five commonly used research and development (R&D) performance measures. Patent and financial data of 78 US-based technology companies from 1976 to 1995 were gathered and analysed to investigate how a well-managed technology portfolio can create synergy and affect R&D performance. A technology portfolio can be characterized by its composition and technology concentration. A valuable technology portfolio that consists of patents with higher average citation made and self-citation ratio can have a positive effect on firm value. Our findings suggest that large firms may enjoy advantages for technological innovation because they can exploit synergy effects of their technology portfolios. Technology concentration strategy does not work well because firms focusing on few technology fields can experience diseconomy to patents received since high-quality patents are increasingly difficult to obtain. This paper lays the groundwork for future empirical research on technology portfolio and R&D performance.     

Firms' open innovation policies,laboratories' external collaborations,and laboratories' R&D performance

The value of the open innovation approach is now widely recognized, and the practice has been extensively researched, but still very little is known about the relative impact of firm‐level and laboratory‐level open innovation policies and practices on R&D performance. This study attempts to measure that impact by analyzing a sample of 203 laboratories of Japanese firms located in Japan. It examines simultaneously the effects of firm‐level open innovation policy and laboratory‐level external collaborations on laboratory R&D performance. The study aims to go beyond a general understanding of the importance of open innovation; it shows how an open innovation policy can have a positive and significant effect on collaborations between a laboratory and local universities or business organizations. The results also show how an open innovation policy can contribute to the laboratory's R&D performance by facilitating external collaborations by the laboratories. It demonstrates how these factors affect R&D performance in different ways, depending on the type of R&D tasks. Our findings suggest several theoretical and practical implications in the field of R&D management.     

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 influence of firms' technological capabilities on export performance in supplier-dominated industries: the case of ceramic tiles firms

In this paper, we study the effects that firms' technological capabilities, as an expression of their technological innovation strategy, have on their international competitiveness. In doing so, we draw on export and international trade literature to justify the influence that the firms' technological activity has on their export performance. In addition, we use concepts derived from the literature on technological innovation to identify different capabilities that the firms may develop to manage their innovation process, i.e., those related to investment, production and co-operation. These constitute the basis of our hypothesis, in which the technological innovation capabilities identified are related to firms' export performance. Empirical work is carried out on a sample of 88 Spanish exporting firms belonging to the ceramic tiles industry, which is characterized as being a supplier-dominated industry. Data were mainly gathered through a postal survey directed at firm managers. Our findings show that technological innovation capabilities have a positive impact on export performance. Specifically, results show that investment in internal non-R&D innovative activities, such as engineering design and pre-production, exerts a positive influence on export performance. However, neither investment in R&D nor investment in external acquisition of technology exerts any influence on export performance. In addition, our findings show that production capabilities have a positive effect linked to both improvement and imitation of products and processes. Regarding co-operation, export performance is related to capabilities that derive from co-operation with universities and research institutes rather than co-operation with other companies.     

Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining environmental influences

Firms may open up their innovation processes on two dimensions. While inbound open innovation refers to the acquisition of external technology in open exploration processes, outbound open innovation describes the outward transfer of technology in open exploitation processes. Prior open innovation research has focused on the inbound dimension, whereas the outbound dimension has been relatively neglected. Therefore, this article addresses the relationship between outbound open R&D strategies and firm performance. We use data from 136 industrial firms to test four hypotheses on the moderating effects of environmental factors in the relationship between open innovation strategies and firm performance. The results show that the degree of technological turbulence, the transaction rate in technology markets, and the competitive intensity in technology markets strengthen the positive effects of outbound open innovation on firm performance. By contrast, the degree of patent protection does not facilitate successful open innovation. The results are crucially important to managers because they show under what environmental conditions open innovation strategies enhance performance.     

Organizing for continuous technology acquisition: the role of R&D geographic dispersion

External technology acquisition has been proved to be an important strategy to enhance firms’ innovation performance. However, previous studies claim that companies acquiring technologies tend to not carry on with this strategy over time, thus limiting their attitude toward continuous technology acquisition. Moreover, the extant literature also highlights that this attitude is strongly influenced by their organizational structure. Therefore, in the present paper, we investigate the relationship between how firms organize R&D activities and continuous technology acquisition. Specifically, given the increasing globalization of technological development, we focus on the role of R&D geographic dispersion, and how its influence is moderated by firms’ technological diversification. We tested our hypotheses on longitudinal data of 303 biotechnology firms that acquired, at least, one USPTO patented technology over the period 1982–2012. Results reveal that R&D geographic dispersion is curvilinearly (inverted U-shaped) related to continuous technology acquisition, with negative returns occurring earlier in technology-diversified companies.     

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.     

Family Ownership and R&D Intensity in Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Firms

Research was largely consistent in predicting a negative relationship between family ownership and research and development (R&D) intensity until Chrisman and Patel, using a behavioral agency model (BAM), called this general assumption into question. They argued that publicly owned family firms typically invest less in R&D than nonfamily‐owned firms. This behavior may however be reversed if economic performance levels are below family aspirations or if family long‐term goals, such as pursuing strong transgenerational family control, are highly valued. While most researchers, like Chrisman and Patel, primarily focused on large listed firms, more research on the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity in privately held small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) is required. This is because firm size can play an important role in understanding the innovation management behavior of firms. Building on the BAM perspective, in the present paper it is argued that Chrisman and Patel's results can be extended to the context of SMEs, albeit with one important specification: the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is likely to be contingent on the way the family has invested its wealth. Specifically, it is contended that in the context of SMEs, where goals are more fluid and mixed, when there is a high overlap between family wealth and firm equity (i.e., most of the family's wealth is invested in the firm) the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is negative because of the family owners' greater desire to protect their socioemotional wealth (SEW). However, if the overlap between the family's total wealth and single firm equity is low (i.e., firm equity is just a small part of the total family wealth), the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is positive as the low overlap between family wealth and firm equity reduces the family's loss aversion propensity. In such a situation, family ownership is likely to foster R&D intensity because of the long‐term orientation of family owners that increases the family firm's propensity to bear the risk of investing in R&D activities. The hypothesis is tested and confirmed in a study of 240 small‐ and medium‐sized firms based in Italy. The paper contributes to the literature in several ways. First, adding to the literature on innovation management and R&D intensity, it increases the understanding of what drives or inhibits R&D investments in SMEs when a family is involved in the ownership of the firm. This is particularly important because research on innovation management, as well as research on R&D intensity in family firms, is primarily focused on large firms and much less on SMEs. Second, the study complements arguments from prior research on the correlates of R&D intensity in large listed firms, showing that the BAM and SEW perspective offer a theoretical framework that is also able to illustrate the complex nature of innovation management in the context of SMEs. Third, the study contributes to research on the effects of family ownership on the general functioning of a firm. In particular, it provides new insights into how family ownership may affect R&D intensity.     

Appropriability,preemption, and firm performance

The impact of strategies used to appropriate innovation rents on firm performance is analyzed using a sample of U.S. public manufacturing firms. Stronger appropriability at the firm level, achieved through patent protection or the ownership of specialized complementary assets, leads to superior economic performance, as measured by the stock market valuation of a firm's R& D assets. Among commonly used ‘nonconventional’ patent strategies, preemptive patenting allows incumbents to strengthen their market power. Consistent with theory, such effect is higher for incumbents with higher ex ante market power and facing a higher threat of entry, and lower when R& D competition is characterized by the discovery of drastic innovations. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Dynamic capabilities for service innovation: conceptualization and measurement

Although the development of new services is becoming a major concern for firms throughout the entire economy, there is only little insight in the organizational antecedents of service innovation. It is widely acknowledged that engaging in R&D is relatively uncommon for service providers, but there are also indications that the R&D concept is poorly applicable to service innovation in the first place. Therefore, attention is shifting toward the actual capabilities that allow a firm to source ideas and convert them into marketable service propositions. This paper provides the operationalization of a set of dynamic service innovation capabilities (DSICs) that is general enough to be relevant across different sectoral contexts. While the selected framework is found to consolidate earlier works on the specificities of service innovation, it also captures broad insights on the evolutionary properties of the creation of novel solutions. Thereby, it exemplifies how DSICs can be conceptualized according to the so‐called synthesis approach to service innovation. We operationalize a refined version of such DSICs and develop a measurement scale, using two multi‐industry subsamples from a dataset of 391 Dutch firms. The measured capabilities are found to correlate to different extents with performance measures. Our main contribution, a validated scale for five complementary DSICs, opens the way to comparative analyses regarding firm abilities for creating innovative services.     

Types of R&D Collaborations and Process Innovation: The Benefit of Collaborating Upstream in the Knowledge Chain

This paper explains how research and development (R&D) collaborations impact process innovation; given the differences in innovation mechanisms, prior insights from studies of product innovation do not necessarily apply to process innovation. Extending the knowledge‐based view of the firm, this paper classifies four types of R&D collaborations—with universities, suppliers, competitors, and customers—in terms of two knowledge dimensions: position in the knowledge chain and contextual knowledge distance. Position in the knowledge chain is the position of the R&D collaboration partner in the knowledge chain of the industry—the input–output sequence of activities that result in the transformation of raw materials into products that are used by end customers. Based on this knowledge chain, this paper considers universities and suppliers as upstream R&D collaborators, and competitors and customers as downstream R&D collaborators. Contextual knowledge distance is the difference in industry‐related contexts of operation of the R&D collaboration partners and the firm. Based on this, this paper views R&D collaborators that are suppliers and competitors as having low contextual knowledge distance to the firm, and R&D collaborators that are customers and universities as having high contextual knowledge distance to the firm. Using this classification, this paper proposes a ranking of R&D collaborations in terms of their impact on process innovation: R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest impact, followed by R&D collaborations with universities, then R&D collaborations with competitors, and finally R&D collaborations with customers. These arguments are tested on a four‐year panel of 781 manufacturing firms. The results of the analyses indicate that R&D collaborations with suppliers and universities appear to have a positive impact on process innovation, R&D collaborations with customers appear to have no impact, and R&D collaborations with competitors appear to have a negative impact. As a consequence, the main driver of the impact of R&D collaborations on process innovation appears to be position in the knowledge chain rather than contextual knowledge distance. These novel ideas and findings contribute to the literature on process innovation. Even though process innovation tends to be internal and tacit to the firm, it can still benefit from external R&D collaborations; this paper is the first to analyze this relationship and provide a theoretical framework for understanding why this would be the case. This study also has important managerial implications. It suggests that managers need to be careful in choosing the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Engaging in R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers appears to be helpful for process innovation, whereas conducting R&D collaborations with competitors may potentially harm process innovation.