R&D Collaborations and Product Innovation*

This paper studies the relative impact on product innovation of research and development (R&D) collaborations with universities, suppliers, customers, and competitors. It argues that each type of R&D collaboration differs in terms of the breadth of new knowledge provided to the firm and in the ease of access of this new knowledge, resulting in a different impact on product innovation. As a result, it proposes that R&D collaborations with universities are likely to have the highest impact on product innovation, followed by R&D collaborations with suppliers, customers, and, finally, competitors. These arguments are tested on the R&D collaborations undertaken by a sample of 781 manufacturing firms during 1998–2002. The tests find that R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest positive impact on product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities. Surprisingly, R&D collaborations with customers do not appear to affect product innovation, and collaborations with competitors appear to harm it. Moreover, the positive influence of R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers is sustained over the long‐term, but the negative influence of R&D collaborations with competitors is, fortunately, short‐lived. These findings indicate that ease of knowledge access, rather than breadth of knowledge, appears to drive the success of R&D collaborations for product innovation. R&D collaborations with suppliers or universities, which are characterized by relatively easy knowledge access, have a positive influence on product innovation, whereas R&D collaborations with customers or competitors, which are characterized by reduced ease in knowledge access, are not related or are even negatively related to product innovation. Moreover, to achieve product innovation with the help of R&D collaborations, it appears that the collaboration must first have mechanisms in place to facilitate the transfer of knowledge; once these are in place, it is better if the partner has a relatively narrow knowledge base. Thus, while R&D collaborations with both suppliers and universities are positively related to product innovation, the narrow knowledge base provided by collaborations with suppliers appears to have a larger positive impact on product innovation than the wider knowledge base provided by collaborations with universities. These arguments and findings are important and novel. The paper is one of the first to theoretically explain and empirically show that various types of collaborations have a differential influence on product innovation. It goes beyond previous literature by providing a theoretical logic for ranking the likely impact of types of collaborations on product innovation. The study also suggests to managers to carefully select the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Collaborations with suppliers appear to be the most promising for product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities, whereas collaborations with competitors may be detrimental to product innovation.     

Interorganizational collaboration strategies and innovation abandonment: The more the merrier?

Investments in innovation activities involve uncertainty. Abandonments of innovative projects are frequent and can entail great losses. Interorganizational collaboration can help a firm to leverage and complement its own competencies and technologies, contrasting the factors that may cause the abandonment of innovation activities. This article shows that firms collaborating with a wider network of external partners to conduct their innovation activities are less likely to abandon them. The article also analyses how different categories of partners among customers & suppliers, competitors, consultants & private R&D institutions, universities & public R&D institutions are associated with the risk of innovation abandonment. Finally, the results show that international collaborations are more likely associated with innovation abandonment than domestic ones. Strategic and theoretical implications are drawn.     

Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies

We explore heterogeneities in the determinants of innovating firms' decisions to engage in R&D cooperation, differentiating between four types of cooperation partners: competitors, suppliers, customers, and universities and research institutes (institutional cooperation). We use two matched waves of the Dutch Community Innovation Survey (in 1996 and 1998) and apply system probit estimation. We find that determinants of R&D cooperation differ significantly across cooperation types. The positive impact of firm size, R&D intensity, and incoming source-specific spillovers is weaker for competitor cooperation, reflecting greater appropriability concerns. Institutional spillovers are more generic in nature and positively impact all cooperation types. The results appear robust to potential simultaneity bias.     

Absorbing knowledge from supply-chain,industry and science: The distinct moderating role of formal liaison devices on new product development and novelty

Building on open innovation literature and recent developments within absorptive capacity research, this paper addresses if the use of formal liaison devices by firms differently influences the effects of external knowledge acquisition from suppliers, customers, competitors and universities on new product development and novelty of new products. The results of a survey of 248 Spanish industrial high-tech firms show that whereas the use of these mechanisms positively moderates the relationship between knowledge acquisition from suppliers and competitors and new product development, they negatively moderate the effect of knowledge acquisition from universities and have no effect on knowledge acquired from customers. On the other hand, the use of these devices negatively moderates the relationship between knowledge acquisition from suppliers and novelty of new products, and has no effect on the knowledge acquired from customers, competitors and universities. Moreover, knowledge acquisition from universities has a direct negative effect on novelty. Contribution of these findings to open innovation and absorptive capacity research is discussed.     

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.     

Managing Technology for Competitive Advantage in Inter-industry Markets

The paper deals with the question of how a firm could develop a technological/R&D strategy to help it to maintain the initiative in its markets. The author extends Porter's analysis of competitive strategy to the R&D field and establishes the point that to remain profitable a firm must consciously manage its interfaces with its suppliers as well as its customers; it must take into account the threats and opportunities arising from such factors as the impact of existing competitors, new suppliers and competitors entering the scene and the possible appearance of substitutes for its products. A comprehensive corporate strategy would contain elements such as using technological change and R&D to raise the entry costs facing potential new rivals, inhibiting or anticipating the entry of substitutes, raising exit costs to customer and supplier by, for example, involving them in technological development.
The paper develops these possibilities in detail and concludes with a summarising checklist of practical options open to a firm to act on the conclusions the author draws from his analysis.     

Complementarity in R&D Cooperation Strategies

This paper assesses the performance effects of simultaneous engagement in R&D cooperation with different partners (competitors, clients, suppliers, and universities and research institutes). We test whether these different types of R&D cooperation are complements in improving productivity. The results suggest that the joint adoption of cooperation strategies could be either beneficial or detrimental to firm performance, depending on firm size and specific strategy combinations. Customer cooperation helps to increase market acceptance and diffusion of product innovations and enhances the impact of competitor and university cooperation. On the other hand, smaller firms also face diseconomies in pursuing multiple R&D cooperation strategies, which may stem from higher costs and complexity of simultaneously managing multiple partnerships with different innovation objectives.The empirical analysis for this paper has been performed at CEREM/Statistics Netherlands. We thank Bert Diederen of CEREM for his assistance. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of Statistics Netherlands. We thank two anonymous referees, the editor (Lawrence White), Bonnie Beerkens, Geert Duysters, Katrin Hussinger, and Pierre Mohnen for helpful comments on earlier drafts     

Science-to-Business collaborations: A science-to-business marketing perspective on scientific knowledge commercialization

Exchange between science and industry is a prerequisite for innovation (Kaufmann & Tödtling, 2001; Pittaway, Robertson, Munir, Denyer & Neely, 2004) and has attracted considerable interest to the role of relationships and interactions in the process of bringing ideas to the market and commercializing knowledge ( and ; Story, Hart & O'Malley, 2009). Despite enormous government financing, artificially supporting the development of such collaborative partnerships has proved difficult. This study extends industrial marketing's B-2-B model by looking at public sector participants in collaborations in order to examine the process of establishing scientific–knowledge–commercialization collaborations. It is based on 82 interviews in 17 collaborative-research projects in both Ireland and Germany. The findings suggest that retention is a catalyst for improving established collaborations to facilitate the commercialization of scientific knowledge through repeated projects. Retention results from loyal collaborators. Collaborators become loyal and committed because they are content with the overall relationship, commercialization service and quality. It is fundamental that all collaborators understand each other's roles and motive as incongruities hamper the development of productive collaborations. In addition, universities need to develop a greater appreciation of the role of satisfaction. Overall, the study shows the importance of repeat collaborations and the development of mutual benefits which facilitate scientific knowledge commercialization. The study also demonstrates how contextual differences impact on scientific knowledge commercialization in both Ireland and Germany.     

Collaboration in R&D with universities and research centres: an empirical study of Spanish firms

Innovation is sometimes the result of collaboration between different agents with complementary resources. When companies make formal agreements to collaborate in R&D they do so with different types of organizations, such as their competitors, suppliers, and customers, or universities and research centres. This paper focuses on attempting to understand the reasons that lead companies to cooperate with universities and research centres and the characteristics of the relationship that this involves. The empirical study is based on a sample of 747 Spanish firms that took part in some type of collaborative R&D project between 1994 and 1996. Results indicate that cooperation with centres is a nation–wide phenomenon involving basic research, conducted under the sponsorship of different research support schemes promoted by central and regional administrations.     

Giving fish or teaching to fish? An empirical study of the effects of government research and development policies

This study compares how government research and development (R&D) subsidy and knowledge transfer from universities and public research institutions stimulate a firm's new product development. More importantly, we emphasize that the effects of these governmental R&D policies on new product development can be achieved not only directly, but also via a mediating role – a firm's innovation capability. Furthermore, we test how other external knowledge sources (such as knowledge from universities and public research institutions) interact with government R&D support to stimulate new product development. The results, based on an investigation of 270 Chinese firms, suggest that both government R&D subsidy and knowledge transfer from universities and public research institutions enhance new product development. The results also show that although government R&D subsidy and knowledge transfer from universities and public research institutions has a direct impact on new product development, innovation capability does mediate the above relationships. Moreover, unlike the findings that other external knowledge sources have a direct influence on new product development as indicated by the previous literature, our findings suggest that external knowledge sources substitute with the government R&D subsidies and complement with knowledge transfer from universities and public research institutions. The results confirm the old sayings that teaching to fish (knowledge transfer from universities and public research institutions can complement with other external knowledge sources) is much better than giving fish (government R&D subsidies substitute other external knowledge sources). This paper enriches current literature of government R&D support policies to firm new product development by providing empirical evidences.     

How do internal capabilities and external partnerships affect innovativeness?

How do a firm’s internal capabilities and external partnerships contribute to its product and process innovativeness? How do their impacts differ? Based on the theoretical framework of exploitation and exploration, we develop an integrative model linking the impact of both internal capabilities and external partnerships on product and process innovativeness. Survey responses from Taiwanese biotechnology firms indicate that research and development (R&;D), marketing, and manufacturing capabilities have different effects on product and process innovativeness. Of the four types of external partnerships, only partnerships with universities and research institutes seem to add value, whereas partnerships with suppliers, customers, and competitors do not contribute to innovativeness. Moreover, marketing capability and customer partnerships have a positive interaction effect on product innovativeness, while manufacturing capability and supplier partnerships have a positive interaction effect on process innovativeness.     

The up- and downside of collaboration in core and non-core technologies – Selective,contingent, and orchestrated openness in R&D collaborations

This paper contributes to the current debate about the “knowledge sharing-protecting” tension in R&D collaborations by introducing a new angle for analyzing this paradox. Considering the role of internal knowledge sources of the firm, the paper introduces and empirically analyses the interplay between three knowledge governance mechanisms (selective, contingent, and orchestrated openness) and the different technological fields of the firm (core, related non-core, and distant non-core technologies). Based on a unique first-hand large-scale project-level dataset from a Global 100 firm across a 10-year span, this research finds that R&D collaborations selectively conducted in firm’s related non-core technological fields promise the best innovation performance. Further, by orchestrating its projects across core and non-core technological fields in the same knowledge portfolio, the firm can leverage a network of inter-connected projects when collaborating with external partners. As such, the firm can strategically “distribute” collaboration risks across multiple projects, while optimize its access to external knowledge that it intends to get. Finally, contrary to the common assumption, this study does not find any discriminating factors against market-based partners in their contribution to innovation in both core and non-core technologies.     

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.     

The co-production of value in digital,university–industry R&D collaborative projects

In the context of R&D collaborations between universities and industry, this study investigates the co-production process and the contextual elements that shape it. We develop a conceptual framework that builds on the service-dominant logic perspective that value propositions emerge from the interaction between co-producing parties and the integration of resources. Specifically, the framework explicates how individual, organizational, and external factors shape the type of interactions and the platforms used, the availability and use of operand and operant resources, and the organizational and individual outcomes sought in R&D collaborative projects. We investigate the interplay among these factors through group interviews with UK industry practitioners and university researchers in the context of digital research projects. The types of interaction, resources, and outcomes sought that characterize successful R&D collaboration are revealed, and the contextual aspects that enable, facilitate, block, or create barriers to successful R&D collaborations are identified. Finally, we propose five practical principles for the successful development of collaborative R&D projects within the university–industry context.     

Empirical Evidence on the Success of R&;D Cooperation—Happy Together?

In this paper we analyse the effect of past R&D cooperation on current firms’ innovation performance. Success measures are: sales of innovative products, distinguishing between products new to the firm and new to the market, and cost reductions due to innovative processes. Particular attention is paid to the impact of different cooperation partners. The analysis rests on firm-level data of the annual German innovation survey. We find that R&D cooperation with competitors leads to greater cost reductions that are attributable to innovative processes. R&D cooperation with research institutes has a positive influence on a firm’s economic success with market novelties.      

Those Who Know,Do. Those Who Understand,Teach. Disseminative Capability and Knowledge Transfer in the Automotive Industry

Innovations in the automotive industry are increasingly building on contributions from different technological fields. Correspondingly, firms in this industry more than ever tend to form research and development (R&D) alliances that aim at innovating new products through integrating separate fields and transferring knowledge. While, in symmetrical R&D alliances, each partner intends to ultimately maintain their distinctive and specialized knowledge base, overlapping knowledge facilitates cooperation and ultimately alliance success. Thus, the capability for knowledge transfer between partners is crucial in such R&D alliances. The literature provides ample evidence that such knowledge transfer is more likely to succeed if the recipient firm has absorptive capability. However, whereas the characteristics of the knowledge transfer process and the recipient firm are well understood, limited attention has so far been given to the issue of the knowledge source firm's ability to transfer knowledge to R&D alliance partners. This study focuses on the impact of source firm capability on successful knowledge transfer in R&D alliances. The study develops a theoretical framework of disseminative capability consisting of five dimensions and tests it on a sample of 59 projects in R&D alliances in the automotive industry. To ensure content validity and avoid common source bias, data were collected from both alliance partners. To test the hypotheses, multiple regression analyses were performed. The results reveal that the source firm's disseminative capability including the attainment of expert knowledge, assessing the recipient firm's knowledge base, and encoding knowledge are positively related to knowledge transfer success, while, surprisingly, detaching knowledge and support of knowledge application in the recipient firm are negatively related. Intentionally or unintentionally, disseminating knowledge across firm boundaries is widely perceived as detrimental to a firm's competitive advantage. Accordingly, the literature tends to downplay disseminative capability as an important means of exploiting external knowledge in collaborative settings. By demonstrating potential benefits for the source firm to transfer knowledge to the allying R&D partner firm, this paper reinvigorates the collaborative dimension in knowledge transfer. Further, the paper is the first of this kind to theoretically explain and empirically show that dimensions of disseminative capability of collaborators in R&D alliances are important for knowledge transfer, whereas disseminative capability is the complementary inverse of an organization's absorptive capacity.     

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.     

How Do Interaction Activities among Customers and between Customers and Firms Influence Market Performance and Continuous Product Innovation? An Empirical Investigation of the Mobile Application Market

Mobile application markets (MAMs) significantly differ from other existing marketplaces at least in two aspects. First, customers (app users) and firms (app providers) frequently interact with each other in real time, which is not common in the conventional marketplaces. Second, many app providers incorporate customers’ opinions or suggestions into their software upgrades, representing one of the most unique and interesting aspects of MAMs. Therefore, it has become critical to understand the impact of interaction activities not only among customers, but also between customers and firms on the market performances of new products in MAMs. One of the most significant issues firms face is whether firms reflect on customers’ postpurchase interaction activities, and the next interesting question is how firms respond to them. This study explores the effects of customer‐to‐customer (C2C), customer‐to‐firm, and firm‐to‐customer interaction activities on market performance. In addition, this study investigates how communication activities influence a firm's tendency to pursue continuous product innovation through research and development (R&D). Using data obtained from a major MAM, T store, three models that are respectively related to product sales, product lifetime, and a firm's R&D activity for product upgrades, are applied to empirically test hypotheses concerning the effects of interaction activities. In our analyses of market performance, a hierarchical log regression model with 10,840 weekly transactions data set related to product sales (model A) and 291 aggregate transactions related to product lifetime (model B) is used. Results indicate that C2C and customer‐to‐firm communication activities have a positive impact on sales, but little relationship with product lifetime. However, a firm's continuous product R&D has a positive impact on both sales and lifetime performance. Our analysis of a firm's R&D (model C) shows that C2C and customer–firm communication increases a firm's R&D activity. Taken together, these results have important implications for customer–firm interactions, market performance, and R&D strategies.     

Where to search for process innovations? The mediating role of absorptive capacity and its impact on process innovation

While the potential of open innovation to develop product-related improvements through the use of external knowledge sources is undeniable, our understanding of how firms become process innovators remains limited. Distinguishing between product and process innovation is important, as insights gleaned from investigating product innovation may not relate directly to the study of process innovation. This study provides new insight into open innovation and absorptive capacity by proposing the mediating role of absorptive capacity – potential and realized – on the relationship between knowledge search from external sources and process-related innovation activities. We test our model using a sample of 171 auto component suppliers in Iran, and find evidence that the learning effects of external scanning increase when a firm learns how to better manage external searches in terms of external absorptive capacity routines. Our results indicate that, while knowledge search from value chain partners is related to process innovation, knowledge search from universities and other research organizations is not, and that potential absorptive capacity mediates the relationship between external knowledge search and process innovation. These findings shed further light on the relationship between a firm’s openness and its process innovation.     

Partner technological heterogeneity and innovation performance of R&D alliances

This study investigates the impacts of partner technology heterogeneity on innovation performance of alliance firms both in terms of R&D output and the enhancement of partners’ innovation capability. We apply a generalized semi-parametric model on a questionnaire survey result of 413 High and New Technology Enterprises in China. In order to ensure the robustness and practicability of our result, PCA is applied to extract comprehensive information and SiZer analysis is employed to test the linearity and significance of the nonparametric functions in the model. Our results indicate that collaborations between partners with different industry technologies exert inversed U-shaped R&D output pattern and affect very little the innovation ability of focal firms. The impact of industry domain divergence is no longer significant when partner technology heterogeneity is added in the model of analysis. Partner technology heterogeneity leads to an ascending S-shaped R&D output pattern and contributes positively to innovation capabilities. One of the implications of our findings is that when choosing R&D alliance partners, firms are better off avoiding candidates from a different industry domain but opt for potential collaborators who are in the same industry but in the different technical domain, which may facilitate more effective organizational learning. Further, we argue that the reasons behind the S-shaped R&D output pattern led by technology heterogeneity being the co-existence of competition and cooperation between partners where firms collaborate in value-creation by combining diverse resources and compete for acquiring partner’s distinct technology and resources. Therefore, we suggest that, for the sustainability of collaborative innovation outcome, both cooperation and competition amongst alliance partners should be encouraged and well balanced at different stages of joint R&D projects.