Strategies for knowledge use in R&D and their implications for innovative performance

We argue that research on R&D strategy and on the use of external knowledge in R&D in particular should differentiate between distinct uses of external knowledge. We distinguish between uses of external knowledge for replication (using knowledge as is) vs. for compounding (building on acquired knowledge by combining it together with internally developed knowledge). We theorize about the respective innovative performance implications of these two strategies and compare them with a self-reliant strategy of internal R&D. We also elaborate contingencies for each strategy, pertaining to firm capabilities and cooperation. We test our predictions using a large sample survey of Dutch innovators in multiple industries. Our findings indicate that compounding firms perform better than replicating firms when the share of sales that consists of innovations that are new to the market is assessed, but they do not outperform firms with an internal R&D strategy. Furthermore, these differences disappear when the share of sales consisting of less novel innovations is studied. This research demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between R&D strategies that replicate vs. compound external knowledge.     

R&D capabilities,intellectual property strength and choice of equity ownership in cross-border acquisitions: evidence from BRICS acquirers in Europe

The aim of the study is to investigate two relatively underexplored factors, namely, the R&D (research and development) capabilities of target firms and the strength of intellectual property (IP) institutions in target economies, that influences the choice of equity ownership in cross border acquisitions (CBAs) undertaken by multinational enterprises (MNEs) from BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) economies. They developed the key hypothesis on foreign market entry through CBAs by incorporating insights from transaction costs economics, the resource-based view and institutional theory to investigate the determinants of full versus partial equity ownership. Using logistic regression estimation methods to a sample of 111 CBA deals of BRICS MNEs in 22 European countries, it was found that BRICS MNEs were likely to pursue full rather than partial acquisition mode when target firms have high R&D capabilities. However, the greater the degree of strength of IP institutions in target economies and higher the target firms’ R&D capabilities, the more likely it is for BRICS MNEs to undertake partial, rather than, full acquisition mode. They provided interesting theoretical insights and managerial implications that might underlie some of the key findings on CBAs by emerging market MNEs.     

Using IT Effectively in R&D Management23—25 September 1996, IMD, Lausanne, Switzerland

The commercialization of biotechnology requires very serious and intense research capabilities. The pharmaceutical industry has been one of the early exploiters of biotechnology because of the existence of such capabilities. This feature has been observed worldover and the literature is replete with information on how firms have evolved various strategies to meet this requirement. The present paper is an attempt to assess the R&D capabilities in the pharmaceutical companies in India in the context of biotechnology commercialization. A study was made of the R&D capabilities of 33 companies. These companies represent 3 categories of the Indian industry: purely medicinal chemistry based pharmaceuticals; diversified (both medicinal chemistry and biotechnology); dedicated biotechnology companies. Discriminant analysis was performed (i) to understand the distinctiveness of the three groups of companies and (ii) to understand the characteristics of their R&D capabilities. With respect to eight of the ten chosen parameters like R&D intensity, skill intensity, linkages, output of R&D, size, age, R&D manpower as a proportion of total manpower and number of skilled R&D employees, the three groups are observed to be distinct from each other.     

Exploratory Results on the Importance of R&D Knowledge Domains in Businesses with Different Strategies

A number of studies have described the consequences of the changing patterns in the business environment for R&D departments. Fewer studies have addressed the specific implications of the changing business environment for the agenda of R&D managers. Gupta and Wilemon (1996) have provided R&D managers with a priority list for action designed to be applicable to R&D departments independent of business strategy. However, a substantial body of literature suggests that the priority listing may be different for R&D departments in businesses with different strategies. Against this background this study sets out to determine whether the priority listing is different for Miles and Snow's (1978) strategic archetypes of prospectors, analyzers, defenders and reactors. A total of 72 R&D managers of businesses competing in industrial markets in the Netherlands provided the data to test for the existence of these differences. The results indicate that the priority listings are indeed different for R&D departments in businesses with different strategies. This finding has important practical implications. The priority listings can be used by R&D managers to assess which R&D capabilities have to be developed in order to match R&D strategy with business strategy and meet the criteria for getting more commercial payback from R&D in a changing business environment.     

Right person in the right place: How the host country IPR influences the distribution of inventors in offshore R&D projects of multinational enterprises

Research summary : Prior work has shown that the strength of the intellectual property regime (IPR) in a host country influences offshore R&D to that country. Building on this work we propose that the strength of the IPR in a host country differentially influences the threat of knowledge leakage on projects that are produced for the location where the multinational firm is headquartered (home) versus the offshore location to which the R&D project is sent (host). We argue and show that when the host location has a weak IPR, fewer host inventors are involved in host R&D projects when compared to home R&D projects. We test our hypotheses using a dataset of patents held by US assignees, but coinvented in 43 host locations with differing IPR strength. Managerial summary : Multinational enterprises often cite the weak IPRs at emerging economy host destinations as a significant impediment to offshore R&D activities in those countries, despite the abundant supply of inexpensive scientific talent there. We find that the weak IPR at the host destination is a greater impediment to offshore R&D that is aimed for end use at the host market than for R&D that is aimed for end use globally or in the home market. Since IPRs are local, a weaker IPR at the host location does not protect IP that is relevant to the host market. Since the IPR at the home country is more relevant for technologies aimed at the home market, the IPR at the host country is irrelevant for such R&D projects. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Integrating the R&D and Patent Functions: Implications for New Product Performance

This paper examines the impact of cross‐functional integration between the research and development (R&D) and the patent functions on new product development (NPD) performance. The attitudinal (collaboration) and the behavioral (contributions of the patent function to NPD) dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions are distinguished. It is also investigated if the level of innovativeness moderates the relationship between the attitudinal and the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. The four hypotheses are tested based on a multi‐informant sample of 101 NPD projects which are nested within 72 technology‐based firms or strategic business units from multiple industries in Germany. The results show that the attitudinal and the behavioral dimensions of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions have a significant and positive impact on NPD performance. This lends empirical support for the notion expressed in the literature that certain managerial capabilities are important for understanding the effect of patenting on appropriability outcomes such as value creation and performance. The level of cross‐functional integration between the patent and the R&D functions appears to be one of these critical patent management capabilities that affect the returns from investments into patents. There is support for the hypothesis that the context matters for the effect of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent functions on NPD performance. In line with the initial hypothesis, the level of innovativeness positively moderates the impact of the behavioral dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department on NPD performance. In contrast to the initial hypothesis, the findings reveal no moderating effect of the level of innovativeness on the link between the attitudinal dimension of cross‐functional integration between the R&D and the patent department and NPD performance. This implies that joint objectives and an open and trustful working relationship between the R&D and the patent functions are not sufficient for achieving higher NPD performance if firms aim to develop very innovative products. In the case of highly innovative products, the actual behavior, that is, the specific contributions of the patent department to the NPD project, matters. Overall, these findings have important implications for improving performance by means of effectively integrating the patent and the R&D functions during NPD.     

Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms

Internationalizing research and development is often advocated as a strategy for fostering the development of technological capabilities. Although firms conduct international R&D to tap into knowledge bases that reside in foreign countries, we argue that in order to benefit from international R&D investments firms must already possess research capabilities in underlying or complementary technologies. We examine the international R&D expansion activities, research capabilities, and patent output of 65 Japanese pharmaceutical firms from 1980 to 1991. We find that firms benefit from international R&D only when they possess existing research capabilities in the underlying technologies. In addition to refining our understanding of when international R&D enhances firm innovation, our results integrate asset‐seeking and asset‐based theories of foreign direct investment. Internationalizing R&D to tap into foreign knowledge bases is consistent with asset‐seeking theories of foreign direct investment, while the contingent nature by which firms benefit from international R&D is consistent with asset‐based theories of foreign direct investment and the notion of absorptive capacity. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

International management of R&D: The Swedish Experience

This paper summarizes the results of in-depth case studies of international R&D management in four Swedish multinational corporations. The results suggest that foreign volumes and shares of R&D expenditures are rapidly increasing. Through a rapidly increasing number of foreign acquisitions, foreign R&D laboratories have been added. As part of international rationalization of production, foreign units have been given global product mandates with responsibility both for manufacturing and R&D. In maturing foreign subsidiaries, routine technical activities have often evolved into proper R&D. Tight labour market conditions for engineers in Sweden have made it increasingly necessary to exploit existing technical capacity, regardless of location.
Concurrently, companies face new pressures for international coordination and control of R&D. Coordination is required to reduce product differentiation, to facilitate technology transfer and to ensure the technical and market compatibility of products and components developed at different locations but sold as part of total systems. Drawing on the experience in the four investigated companies, the paper discusses how systems and procedures can be developed to meet the need for coordinated international R&D management.     

PROJECT CHOICE AND RISK IN R&D*

We introduce stochastic R&D in the Hotelling model and show that if the technical risk is sufficiently high, all firms focus on the most valuable market segment. We then endogenize technical risk by allowing firms to choose between a safe and a risky R&D technology. Firms either both target the most attractive market with at least one firm using the risky technology or they choose different niche projects and both apply the safe technology. R&D spillovers lead to more differentiated R&D projects and patent protection to less. Project coordination within an RJV implies more differentiation, and may be welfare‐improving.     

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.     

HETEROGENEITY OF FIRM CAPABILITIES AND COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF MOTIVES

This article proposes capability heterogeneity of R&D consortia participants as a condition to distinguish two competing motives for cooperative R&D: cost-sharing vs. skill-sharing. An analysis of 398 questionnaire responses from participants in Japanese government-sponsored R&D consortia finds that the relative importance of the cost-sharing motive in R&D consortia increases when participants’ capabilities are homogeneous or projects are large, while the relative importance of the skill-sharing motive in R&D consortia increases with heterogeneous capabilities. The skill-sharing motive is likely to increase a firm’s R&D spending, implying an additional consideration for management’s evaluation of cooperative R&D participation, as well as adding a new public policy implication of cooperative R&D. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Entry mode,organizational learning,and R&D in foreign affiliates: evidence from Japanese firms

This paper develops hypotheses concerning the role of entry mode and experience‐based organizational learning as determinants of the R&D intensity of foreign affiliates and tests these hypotheses on a sample of 420 Japanese manufacturing affiliates abroad. Entry mode has a major impact on R&D activities: the R&D intensities of acquired affiliates substantially exceed those in wholly owned greenfield affiliates, while the R&D intensities of minority owned ventures are higher if Japanese parent firms lack strong R&D capabilities at home. For greenfield operations, support is found for an incremental growth pattern of foreign R&D as a function of organizational learning and affiliate capability building. The results are consistent with the view that part of the explanation for Japanese firms' relative lack of involvement in overseas R&D must be sought in their status as ‘latecomers’ in the establishment of overseas manufacturing networks. At the same time, a number of Japanese firms have actively used foreign acquisitions and joint ventures to gain access to overseas technology and to establish overseas R&D capabilities at a faster pace. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The allocation of resources for R&D in the world's leading pharmaceutical companies

A survey of 45 leading pharmaceutical companies has been used to investigate aspects of their Research and Development (R&D) strategies, the allocation of resources including the financing and staffing of R&D functions, and the numbers of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) in the development process. The companies included the top ten by R&D expenditure in 1992 (top 10 companies). The study identified characteristics of leading companies and provided comparative data. The principal findings are that:
top ten companies had the highest R&D to sales ratios, progressed more NCEs after the drug candidate selection stage in 1992 and had achieved a greater geographical decentralization of staff than any other company.
Japanese companies differed in some respects from western companies, even those of a similar size. They operated with smaller clinical and regulatory affairs functions and made detailed plans for R&D expenditure further ahead than western companies, on average, more than 5 years compared with 3 years.
an increase in aggregated R&D staffing had occurred between 1990 and 1992 in 33 companies for which data for both years were available and staff numbers had decreased in only five of those companies.
top ten companies differed from others in their apparent productivity measured in terms of staff or R&D expenditure per NCE after the drug candidate selection stage, utilizing more staff and having greater R&D expenditure per NCE.
The results also appear to indicate early signs of a change in the structure of the industry according to R&D expenditure, which has since become more apparent. There was a distinct polarization by R&D budget size among the respondent companies: five companies were spending $900m or more on R&D in 1992 while the majority of the rest were spending less than a third of that amount.     

Principal researcher and project manager: who should drive R&D projects?

In this paper, it is analyzed the hypothesis that in R&D the principal researcher (PR) is accepted as the coordinator or project manager (PM), carrying out the search for financing and to manage contracts, resources, cost, time, scope, risk and uncertainty, communication, stakeholders and so on, in addition to internal research activities. Thus, this study tries to verify this hypothesis through a major literature review in different types of projects developed by university, but also with a look to industry and industry-university cooperation. Two case studies are also analyzed, centered in its R&D project management maturity level. It is concluded that there is an important issue in projects’ success and in the time spent by PR in management, work for which they are under trained; while at the industry there is a greater approach to project management by the proximity of the innovation projects to other industrial projects. Following these initial findings and according to the case study results, it is proposed that R&D Projects in universities would be separated into two synergistic knowledge areas: R&D Management and Project Management. It is also recommended to allocate them to two distinct roles, where they could add value to R&D through their better knowledge and skills.     

Interplay between internal investment and alliance specialization in R&D and marketing

A firm's efforts to build its technological and marketing capabilities are not limited to internal investments but can be extended to include external knowledge acquisitions. We examine the interaction between a firm's specialization in R&D or marketing through its internal investments and its alliances in two different industrial contexts. Our results, based on secondary data sources such as Compustat and SDC Platinum from 1985 to 2009, show that the interaction effects of internal specialization and alliance specialization are contingent on the types of tasks (i.e., R&D and marketing) and the industrial context (i.e., high- and low-tech industries). Our findings indicate that a firm in a high-tech industry is able to achieve greater gains by complementing its internal focus on R&D with its external focus on marketing or by focusing on R&D both internally and externally. In contrast, a firm in a low-tech industry is able to achieve greater performance when R&D and marketing complement each other, without regard for how they are aligned through internal investments and alliances. The firm is also able to improve its performance by focusing on marketing both internally and externally. These findings provide new insights into the complementarity between internal investments and alliances.     

Diversity is strategy: the effect of R&D team diversity on innovative performance

Diversity in the workplace has attracted significant interest in organisations that want to attract and retain talented employees. Breakthrough innovation requires a wider knowledge base, and organisations increasingly rely on multidisciplinary R&D teams to identify scientific developments that bridge gaps and reduce time to market. However, research on the performance implications of R&D team diversity remains limited and the empirical evidence inconsistent. This paper investigates the impact of surface and deep-level diversity on R&D teams’ innovative performance and how diversity dimensions interact to drive innovation. We find supportive evidence that R&D team characteristics influence innovation outcomes, confirming our hypothesising that diversity is a valuable strategy for an organisation to pursue as it provides greater cognitive ability. Each diversity facet however has its own distinct effects depending on the novelty of innovation and industry. Yet, diversity is not solely positive and excessive heterogeneity could be detrimental to R&D team performance. Our findings suggest that high diversity in gender or skills in cognitively diverse teams might be negative attributes to take into consideration. Senior managers and organisations should therefore consider the appropriate mix of capabilities to benefit from creativity in diverse R&D teams and avoid possible conflict and distrust associated with diversity.     

Inventor bricolage and firm technology research and development

We examine the conditions around firm use of 'inventor bricolage,' or the reconstruction of technological capabilities through reallocation of extant individual inventors to address new opportunities embodied in patents. Empirically, we examine the dynamics of both firm and individual patenting activity in publicly traded Life Science Diagnostic firms to explore how inventor bricolage is related to firms' existing research and development (R&D) capabilities and firms' acquisition of external capabilities through merger and acquisition (M&A) activities. Evidence at the firm level suggests that breadth of inventors' human capital and collaboration with co-researchers with relevant experience is positively related to inventor bricolage. At the inventor level, the fewer patents an inventor has, the broader the individual's prior patent portfolio, and the more co-researchers with relevant experience, the more likely inventors will patent in a new area. M&A does not appear to have an impact on the utilization of existing human capital. Our findings suggest that R&D managers should assign inventors with less assimilative capacity and more creative capacity in teams where there is relevant experience in order to promote inventor bricolage.     

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.     

R&D strategies and variable demand

This paper looks at some of the factors imposing on the resourcing of R&D in the face of fluctuating demand. R&D has various features that differentiate it from other aspects of corporate activity and consequently managerial strategies for dealing with R&D may vary substantially. The implications for R&D strategies and the acquisition of technology are considered under different demand conditions. Various alternative strategies are developed including contracting out, technology licensing and the maintenance of an in-house facility through labour hoarding. New and existing empirical estimates are used to support the arguments and explain corporate strategy in this area.     

Where can capabilities come from? network ties and capability acquisition in business groups

While strategy researchers have devoted considerable attention to the role of firm‐specific capabilities in the pursuit of competitive advantage, less attention has been directed at how firms obtain these capabilities from outside their boundaries. In this study, we examine how firms' multiplex network ties in business groups represent one important source of capability acquisition. Our focus allows us to go beyond the traditional focus on network structure and offer a novel contingency model that specifies how different types of network ties (e.g., buyer‐supplier, equity, and director), individually and in complementary combination, will differentially affect the process of R&D capability acquisition. We also offer an original analysis of how other aspects of network structure (i.e., network density) in business groups affect the efficacy of network ties on R&D capability. Empirically, we provide an original contribution to the capabilities literature by utilizing a stochastic frontier estimation to rigorously measure firm capabilities, and we demonstrate the value of this approach using longitudinal data on business groups in emerging economies. We close by discussing the implications of our supportive results for future research on firm capabilities, organizational networks, and business groups. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.