Exploring the Motivational and Behavioral Foundations of External Technology Experts’ Knowledge Sharing in Collaborative R&D Projects: The Contingency Role of Project Formalization

High‐tech manufacturers increasingly rely on the knowledge contributions of external technology experts (ETEs), who contribute to collaborative R&D projects on behalf of suppliers. Many scholars have considered knowledge sharing in R&D collaborations from a firm‐level or project‐level perspective and focused on formalization as a potential remedy. While individual supplier employees at the operative level make the decision to share critical knowledge, the individual‐level perspective in literature on knowledge sharing in collaborative R&D projects is virtually nonexistent. Because knowledge sharing in collaborative R&D is a largely discretionary act on behalf of the supplier employee, personal motivations rather than inter‐firm relationship elements (e.g., network position or dependency) become the primary determinant of one’s sharing behavior. Abstracting from or ignoring these motivations of supplier employees in studies on collaborative R&D may obscure important insights for R&D managers. This study is an important first step in providing the empirical evidence needed to uncover the motivational and behavioral foundations for ETEs’ knowledge sharing in a collaborative R&D setting. Building on theories of gift and social exchange, this article identifies customer stewardship and distributive fairness as two important personal motivations of ETEs to share knowledge. Project formalization is considered as a key contingency condition. Analyzing survey responses of 186 ETEs, a multilevel regression‐based moderated‐mediation analysis of direct and indirect effects shows that customer stewardship predicts an ETE’s knowledge sharing behavior under (very) low levels of project formalization, and distributive fairness predicts knowledge sharing behavior under medium to high levels of formalization. Together, the results provide R&D project managers who aim to leverage external knowledge contributions with valuable insights that have been obscured in past firm‐level collaborative R&D studies.     

Reasons for corporate research and development spin‐outs – the chemical and pharmaceutical industry as example

The spin‐out of research and development (R&D) activities from established companies has increased during recent years. The reasons for realising corporate spin‐outs, especially regarding the involvement of financial investors, were investigated based on 30 European case studies within the chemical and pharmaceutical industry. The reasons can be categorised into two groups: an investment and a divestment rationale. Whereas the chemical industry uses both rationales, there are only divestment cases in the pharmaceutical industry. The investment cases within the chemical industry show that R&D spin‐outs can make an important contribution towards the flexibilisation and performance improvement of a company's internal R&D. The divestment cases show that R&D spin‐outs can be a suitable possibility to continue promising R&D activities. The survival rate of the analysed spin‐outs is high and numerous new jobs have been created in the past years, especially in pharmaceutical spin‐outs.     

Individual performance in a coopetitive R&D alliance: motivation,opportunity and ability

This study examines individual knowledge sharing in a coopetitive R&D alliance. R&D is increasingly carried out in an R&D alliance setting, where individuals share highly specialized tacit knowledge crossing firm boundaries. A particular challenging setting is the coopetitive R&D alliance, where partner firms partially compete and individuals may leak competitive knowledge. This setting has been studied on the level of the partner firm. We want to deepen insights by examining the individual level. Drawing on the motivation‐opportunity‐ability framework, we study the influence of individuals’ job experience (ability) on their performance in the alliance. We also examine effects of two‐ and three‐way interactions between job experience, a central position in the social alliance network (opportunity) and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. We find a positive association of job experience with individual performance, a positive interaction between job experience and extrinsic motivation and a positive three‐way interaction between job experience, central network position and intrinsic motivation, and discuss the impact of these findings.     

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.     

Is R&D risky?

Research summary : Many studies use research and development (R&D) intensity or R&D spending as a proxy for risk taking, but we have little evidence that either associates positively with firm risk. We analyze the relations between R&D intensity (R&D spending to sales) and R&D spending on the one hand and 11 different indicators of firm risk on the other, using data from 1,907 to 3,908 firms in various industries over 13 years. The analysis finds a general lack of consistent positive association between R&D and firm risk, making the use of R&D as an indicator of risk taking questionable. Furthermore, R&D intensity and spending do not correlate positively, suggesting they measure different constructs. We discuss potential reasons for these nonsignificant results. Our study demonstrates that researchers should avoid casual use of R&D as a proxy for risk taking without explicitly providing a clear definition and measurement model for risk. Managerial summary : Risk is a key construct in strategic management research. Many studies in this area measure risk taking by research and development (R&D) intensity (the ratio of R&D spending to sales) or R&D spending. However, since R&D intensity and spending have also been used to measure various other things such as information processing demands, this raises the question of whether R&D intensity and spending are valid indicators of firm risk. We examine this issue by considering the associations of R&D intensity and R&D spending with conventional measures of firm risk. We find a general lack of consistent positive association between R&D and firm risk, making the use of R&D as an indicator of risk taking questionable. Furthermore, R&D intensity and spending do not correlate positively, suggesting they measure different things. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON INDUSTRY R&D AND MARKET STRUCTURE*

This paper aims to shed some new insights on the long‐debated and both extensively and intensively explored relationship between market concentration and industry R&D intensity. In order to do so, this study develops, from a classic Dorfman‐Steiner [1954] model of firm R&D, a model of industry R&D, where consumer preference over quality and price, R&D technology, and the joint distribution of firm‐specific technological competence and market share jointly determine the level of industry R&D intensity. The joint distribution term, which reflects both the underlying distribution of firms‐specific technological competence and the strength of its link with market share, suggests that the concentration‐R&D relationship differs depending on the strength of the link or simply the appropriability of R&D in terms of market share: A positive relationship is predicted for low‐appropriability industries, where market concentration supplements low R&D appropriability, while a negative or an inverted U‐shaped relationship for high‐appropriability industries. An empirical analysis of data, disaggregated at the five‐digit SIC level, on R&D and market concentration of Korean manufacturing industries provides supportive evidence for the predictions.     

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.     

Realities of R&D as a business: MBI's experience

The level of effort in a R&D activity on research or development depends upon whether the R&D activity is basic or applied. In general, the R&D at a university is focused more on the research (R of R&D) whereas the emphasis in an industrial R&D is more on the development (D of R&D) and less on research. In the past, this created a gap difficult to bridge between the R&D needs of an industrial sector and the R&D output from university and governmental laboratories. The recent success in R&D as a business has mainly been due to understanding the critical steps needed to take an idea to a marketplace and, thus, the emphasis on R or D has become a moving target depending upon the need. MBI International, a non‐profit R&D organization, was created to bridge the gap between academic and industrial R&D and to validate, develop and demonstrate technologies having commercial potential in the industrial sector. In the process, MBI developed partnerships with universities, governmental agencies, foundations, and industries to resource innovative technologies, funds, physical facilities and market opportunities to make the R&D business a reality. In this paper, we present MBI's experience in developing and commercializing R&D technologies in several new spin‐off companies, joint ventures, and out‐licensing.     

Technology roadmapping (TRM) and strategic alignment for an applied research centre: a case study with methodological contributions

Technology roadmapping provides a strategic tool to help companies develop an outside‐in view and challenge their current competitive perspectives. In this paper, the authors describe the roadmapping process, which is aligned, with the research and development (R&D) strategy of an applied research centre. This process is based in an adapted combination of state‐of‐the‐art methodologies, and as a result, the case study shows interesting findings in terms of R&D strategy, technology strategy and roadmapping processes and methodology.     

Unveiling dimensions of organizational culture: an exploratory study in Malaysian R&D organizations

Previous literature indicated that research and development (R&D) activities are influenced, to a large extent, by the culture of the organization. While these studies have identified elements of culture that are conducive to R&D, identifying the existing dimensions of organizational culture in Malaysian R&D organizations has not been empirically explored. The measures for this study were originally developed for the sole purpose of capturing cultural aspects in R&D organizations in the Malaysian context. These measures were developed based on the relevant issues discovered from exploratory case studies and nine categories of cultural values identified from the literature. A sample of employees (n = 198) from 45 R&D organizations took part in this study. Factor analysis was adopted to uncover common underlying dimensions (factors) of the organizational culture construct. The findings suggest that the organizational culture construct in R&D organizations may best be represented through a structure of eight factors. The eight factors are teamwork and knowledge sharing, empowerment and recognition, conformity and impediments to R&D, risk‐taking, customer orientation, autonomy, social networking, and organizational design. Despite some methodological issues that arose from this study, this model has the potential to become a management instrument to measure the underlying culture in R&D organizations. R&D managers can deploy this model to establish the baseline level of research culture in their respective units and thus provide the foundation for management initiatives to drive R&D activities. This model can also be used as benchmarking parameters when an R&D organization intends to evaluate various aspects of their organizational culture in relation to others that are considered to be leaders in the industry.     

Technology analysis and R&D management

Technology analysis is a new field of knowledge aimed at creating a fuller understanding of the technological setting within which business operates. It provides a macro-discipline and is specifically aimed at improving the effectiveness of management of technology. As such it is of direct relevance to R&D management.
The essential tools of technology analysis constitute a set of analytical frameworks covering aspects such as: (i) a common approach to describing individual technological artefacts, (ii) a taxonomy of technologies, (iii) a classification of technological trends, (iv) a chart of technological limits, and (v) a socio-technical preference profile.
These frameworks help the R&D manager to dissect and debate typical R&D management problems such as: (i) selecting R&D projects, (ii) setting broad R&D objectives in the case of a given project and (iii) setting specific R&D goals to meet the said objectives. The frameworks also help the R&D manager to portray and present research achievements within a simple and intuitively appealing framework.     

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.     

Learning patterns in early stage R&D projects: empirical evidence from the fibre raw material technology project in the Netherlands

Past research has reported that learning processes in early stage R&D are either chaotic, or absent. We challenge this finding by elaborating Van de Ven et al.’s trial‐and‐error learning model and explore an alternative conceptualization. We explored the combinations of positive and negative outcomes and action course continuation and modification. We use data gathered in an R&D setting of a 4‐years pre‐competitive knowledge generation project in the Dutch paper and board industry. Whereas the Van de Ven and Polley (1992) approach applied on our data also would lead us to conclude that ‘no learning’ would happen, our decomposed model identified three distinct learning patterns: (1) a virtuous pattern of positive outcomes resulting in continuations of action courses; (2) a vacuous pattern of negative outcomes resulting in modifications of action courses; and (3) a verification pattern of positive outcomes resulting in modifications of action courses. We observed the virtuous and verification patterns during the first 2 years and virtuous and vacuous learning in the second 2 years. These results might be useful for R&D managers since they provide insight into how an early stage R&D project can develop and where managers might intervene and adjust action courses.     

A Closer Look at Cross‐functional R&D Cooperation for Innovativeness: Innovation‐oriented Leadership and Human Resource Practices as Driving Forces

Because cross‐functional research and development (R&D) cooperation appears to drive innovation, many firms have invested considerably in it. However, despite substantial efforts to improve information and communication infrastructures or to bring departments in closer proximity with one another, structural investments often fail to produce the desired positive impact on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. This failure may arise because firms undertaking these structural investments do not manage their employees adequately. Extant research acknowledges the importance of motivating and enabling members of the R&D function to cooperate with other functions. Yet empirical studies investigating the relative importance of leadership and different human resource (HR) practices for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation are scarce. Drawing on the resource‐based view and organizational support theory, this study investigates how innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices might support members of the R&D function and encourage cross‐functional R&D cooperation, which enhances product program innovativeness. Specifically, members of the R&D function who are supported in their innovation efforts through innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices should reciprocate for the support they receive by intensifying their cross‐functional cooperation to achieve greater product program innovativeness. Relying on multi‐informant data from 125 firms with assessments from marketing and R&D managers, this study shows that innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices have different effects on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. A structural equation modeling‐based analysis of the hypothesized relationships reveals that innovation‐oriented leadership, rewards, and training and development have considerable positive effects. In contrast, recruitment does not drive cross‐functional R&D cooperation. Because firms usually operate in dynamic markets, and increasingly acquire relevant information from customers when generating innovations, this study also considers market‐related dynamism and customer integration as important contingency factors. For firms facing market‐related dynamism and those relying on customer integration, leadership and training and development are particularly effective for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation. By integrating two theoretical perspectives, this study not only advances knowledge on the antecedents of cross‐functional R&D cooperation, but also helps explain differences in their relative effectiveness. Furthermore, it both adds to the discussion of whether monetary rewards are appropriate means to foster innovation and challenges existing assumptions about the role of recruiting for innovation.     

Managing asymmetries in information flows and interaction between R&D,manufacturing, and service in complex product development

Studies of new product development have demonstrated the value of effective interaction between research and development (R&D) and manufacturing, but few studies also include service operations despite their growing importance. Building on in‐depth studies of two firms in the capital goods sector, the paper illustrates how the structural differences between the R&D‐manufacturing and R&D‐service interfaces result in serious information and interaction imbalances, and presents managerial means to handle these. The paper makes three contributions. First, it shows the value of moving beyond a dyadic perspective to studies of more complex structures involving triads of specialized functions. Second, the paper underlines the role of informational flows that can compensate for asymmetries in such triads and facilitate thoughtful trade‐off decisions. Third, the paper highlights the importance of creating conditions for integrated knowledge‐based approaches across functions, which involve the generation and sharing of new knowledge. The paper ends with an emerging management agenda to support such integrative efforts in complex product development projects.     

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.     

Strategies for Linking Vertical Cooperative R&D to Commercialization in Korea

Since 1982, the government of Korea has actively promoted vertical cooperative R&D programs between government-sponsored research institutes (GRIs) and private firms. A number affirms participated in the programs because cooperative R&D could lower the risk and could contribute to rapid commercialization of many technologies. In this article, Chulwon Lee, Zong-Tae Bae, and Jinjoo Lee examine the effectiveness of participant firms' strategies for commercial utilization of cooperative R&D results, from the viewpoint of technology sourcing at the project level. The data have been obtained from 162 cases of vertical cooperative R&D projects from a diverse group of industries in Korea. Three different commercialization strategies are empirically derived through cluster analysis of the relative usage rates of cooperative R&D and of other supplementary technology acquisition methods. They find that the effectiveness of these strategy clusters varies significantly according to the types of innovation, that is, project-business relatedness. If the project belongs to an existing business area, in-house development augmented cooperative R&D strategy is the most effective. On the other hand, licensing-in supplemented cooperative R&D strategy is the most successful, if the project belongs to a new business area. Findings suggest that firms participating in cooperative R&D projects should try to utilize other supplementary technology acquisition methods in order to achieve commercial utilization of cooperative R&D results.     

An empirical analysis of the determinants of technology roadmap utilization

For many years now, firms have managed their research and development (R&D) by applying various approaches drawn from the discipline of technology roadmapping (TRM). The underlying rationale of these roadmapping approaches is to align firms' product and technology developments with their business goals. By visually representing firms' technology strategy, roadmaps support intra‐firm communication and facilitate the coordination of strategic decisions and activities within the technology management domain. Most previously published research on TRMs has focused on the design and implementation of roadmapping processes; that is, relatively few empirical or quantitative studies describe the use and evaluation of roadmapping techniques. This paper seeks to address this gap by conducting a survey of 186 different R&D units within stock market‐listed companies in Korea that have implemented TRM. The paper attempts to identify the antecedent factors behind firms' successful use of roadmaps, further identifying correlations between these antecedent factors through an analysis of the R&D units. It also empirically highlights these antecedent factors by empirically analyzing and verifying correlations between roadmap utilization and R&D performance.     

Imperfect Patent Protection and Innovation

The paper studies the effect of strengthening protection on R&D incentives in the context of process innovation. It shows that for non‐drastic innovations, that do not render the pre‐existing technology obsolete, the innovator might favor imitation if the expected royalty rate determined by the court is sufficiently high. Since imitation is discouraged for very high levels of patent protection, R&D investment is maximized for an intermediate level of patent strength. This finding provides a theoretical explanation for emerging empirical evidence questioning the effectiveness of strengthening protection on innovation incentives. It also serves as a justification for the imperfections of the existing patent system that allows for some infringement.