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.     

Knowledge management and coopetition: How do cooperating competitors balance the needs to share and protect their knowledge?

Coopetitors need to manage interorganizational knowledge flows to balance cooperative knowledge sharing and competitive knowledge protection. The question of how to balance these has received little research attention, with most studies analyzing knowledge sharing or protection separately. To address this gap, we develop a theoretical framework on coopetitive knowledge sharing and knowledge protection practices. This framework is based on a literature review of coopetitive interorganizational knowledge management. To complement and refine this initial framework, we build on insights from a qualitative study that gathered data from 11 semistructured interviews with key informants of Latin American firms. We show that a balance between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection in coopetition is facilitated when coopetitive interorganizational knowledge management helps coopetitors share general and project-specific knowledge while they withhold core knowledge about their firms and clients. To achieve this balance, firms combine formal and informal knowledge protection practices. As theoretical implications, we provide a fine-grained and synoptic understanding of the characteristics of knowledge management among coopetitors. As managerial implications, we call managers' attention to the need to find a balance between knowledge sharing and protection that will help clearly define what kind of knowledge is shared or protected when firms cooperate with rivals.     

A question of (mis)alignment: innovation mandates and absorptive capacity routines

Research suggests that effective R&D requires the right combination of inward-looking and outward-looking absorptive capacity routines. However, we do not have an adequate understanding of how these routines influence innovative output in R&D units with different mandates. In this paper, we argue that adopting an absorptive capacity routine would positively or negatively influence the R&D subsidiary’s innovative output, depending on whether the routine is aligned or misaligned with the subsidiary’s innovation mandate to ‘exploit’ existing knowledge or ‘explore’ new knowledge. We test this using data collected from a global packaged-software firm with 14 international R&D subsidiaries that implemented six major absorptive capacity routines in the period 2000–2010. Our research provides new insights for both scholars and practitioners in R&D management, by showing that balancing of absorptive capacity routines should be considered in light of innovation mandates of subsidiaries as well as the firm. Our analysis also provides insights on why decision makers may still adopt misaligned routines.     

Teams investing their knowledge shares in the stock market of virtuality: a gain or a loss?

Best knowledge-sharing practices in team-based work are a 'must' for success in flexible and adaptable organisation forms. This research study provides actionable insights on how managers can enhance the knowledge worker's willingness to collaborate in a specific type of virtual teaming, the learning team, and build better communication and collaboration practices in and between these teams.     

The impact of team‐member exchange,differentiation, team commitment,and knowledge sharing on R&D project team performance

This paper integrates team‐member exchange (TMX), affective commitment, and knowledge sharing to examine how work unit TMX influences employees' R&D project team commitment and intention to share knowledge, and how team knowledge‐sharing intention and TMX differentiation influences team performance. The results support the relationships between work unit TMX and employees' intention to share knowledge and team commitment. In addition, the results show that work unit TMX increases intention to share knowledge through increasing group members' team commitment. At the group level, the results support the relationships between team knowledge‐sharing intention and team performance. The results also show that TMX differentiation moderates the relationship between work unit TMX and team performance. That is, greater work unit TMX is more likely to achieve higher team performance in a team with low TMX differentiation as opposed to a team with high TMX differentiation. Implications for theory building, future research, and R&D management are discussed.     

Managing scientific and technical experts in R&D: beyond tensions,conflicting logics and orders of worth

Practices for managing scientific and technical experts today require a critical re-evaluation. This paper takes a sociological perspective (convention theory) to examine the tensions and conflicts that arise in the implementation of practices for managing knowledge workers. Drawing on six case studies of knowledge-intensive organizations and participant observation, we elucidate three different coexisting logics – technical, market and managerial – that together create tensions. We go beyond the analysis of practices in R&D to unveil the nature of those tensions and to show how and under what circumstances arrangements are made between the different logics. Our study demonstrates that knowledge-intensive organizations have relied on reward and dual ladder systems to solve the tensions between logics. Dual ladders often fail because they are the representation of the problem rather than the solution. We argue that the way for the issue of managing knowledge workers to evolve lies in the enrichment of arrangements, the deepening of compromises and logic hybridization. We discuss the implications of these findings for R&D management practices.     

Knowledge management capabilities in R&D: a UK‐‐Japan company comparison

This paper uses a 'knowledge‐based' approach to compare the management of R&D in two leading chemicals companies, one British (ICI plc) and one Japanese. It describes key differences in the ways they integrate the 'near‐market' knowledge of business units and the scientific knowledge and technical expertise of R&D personnel in central R&D facilities. It shows that the same management practices that underpin superior 'integrative capabilities' in the Japanese firm, including central funding of R&D, job‐rotation and career structures and multidisciplinary project teams, also result in significant R&D weaknesses. The comparison demonstrates that different organisational mechanisms are needed to support (1) the development and (2) the leveraging of specialist knowledge within different innovation contexts . Firms must be able to strike a balance between integrative and specialist capabilities to get the most from their R&D. Moreover, the above characteristics which underpin these capabilities are often 'embedded' in the broader organisation making them difficult to emulate when they represent 'best‐practice' but also making them difficult to change in response to new threats and opportunities.     

Schumpeterian economics: some observations on the relevance of his theoretical contributions to the management of industrial research and development

This paper investigates the relevance of the theoretical writings of Schumpeter to the management of research and development (R&D) in small and large industrial firms. Schumpeter's emphasis in his early work on three main aspects of industrial R&D; namely the importance of entrepreneurship, industrial innovation and resultant creative destruction, were major new insights that rejected the long‐standing view that equilibrium was the best state for any industrial economy. This paper, with the aid of relevant literature from both Schumpeter and others, seeks to relate his theoretical approach (that changed over time to favour large firm R&D) to the implication for industrial R&D, and in particular, the relationship between R&D in small and large firms. The paper concludes that if Schumpeter had lived to see the current industrial landscape, he might have returned to his early belief that entrepreneurial new small firms remain key harbingers of technological progress.     

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.     

Why and how knowledge sharing matters for R&D engineers

This research explored how and why knowledge sharing matters for R&D engineers by investigating the effects of knowledge sharing on R&D engineer's job performance and job satisfaction. Based on multilevel data of 242 R&D engineers from 55 teams, the results showed that the relationships between knowledge sharing and R&D engineer's job performance/satisfaction were mediated through individual learning and self-efficacy. Individual learning was a necessary step for knowledge sharing to transform into individual knowledge, which in turn enhanced individual level outcomes. At the same time, individual learning enhanced self-efficacy, which subsequently benefited R&D engineer's job performance and job satisfaction. Finally, individual learning was found to be strongly related to individual job satisfaction.     

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.     

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.     

Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: a case study using social network analysis

The existence of informal social networks within organizations has long been recognized as important and the unique working relationships among scientific and technical personnel have been well documented by both academics and practitioners. The growing interest in knowledge management practices has led to increased attention being paid to social network analysis as a tool for mapping the nature and membership of informal networks. However, despite the knowledge-intensive nature of research and development (R&D) activities, social network analyses of the R&D function remain relatively rare. This paper discusses the role of informal networks in the development, exchange and dissemination of knowledge within the R&D function. A case study using social network analysis is used to compare and contrast formal and informal knowledge networks within ICI. Marked differences between the informal organization and ICI's formal structures for knowledge exchange are revealed and a series of insights into the working habits of technical staff are presented. The implications for managers are clear: through a better understanding of the informal organization of R&D staff, they can more successfully capture and exploit new ideas; more efficiently disseminate information throughout the function; and more effectively understand the working habits and activities of employees.     

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.     

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

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

R&D subsidiary isolation in knowledge-intensive industries: evidence from Austria

We investigate R&D subsidiary isolation within Multinational Corporations (MNCs) competing in knowledge-intensive industries. For such MNCs, accessing knowledge and nurturing the innovative potential of R&D subsidiaries is vital for on-going competitiveness. This, according to conventional thinking, requires integration of the subsidiary within the host country as well as internally within the MNC. Recent studies have shown, however, that overseas subsidiaries can become isolated (i.e., losing requisite integration), even in high-technology sectors. We tackle this issue by focusing on organizational factors at corporate and subsidiary levels that have the potential to explain subsidiary isolation. We analyze a sample of 45 foreign-owned Austrian subsidiaries undertaking R&D in knowledge-intensive industries using a combination of questionnaire and secondary data. The results suggest that parent and subsidiary experience, the degree of early-stage research conducted by the subsidiary and the use of training and rotation practices by the subsidiary, all act to counter isolation. Interestingly, we find that proximity between parent and R&D subsidiary does not play a significant role in predicting isolation. We also show how these factors influence communication frequency between the R&D subsidiary and various actors within the internal and the external networks in different ways.     

Institutional means-ends decoupling work in industrial R&D project implementation

Managing goals is a key network management function and is critical in the implementation of industrial R&D projects. In this paper, we explore the implementation of an industrial R&D project, focusing in particular upon the role of means-ends decoupling work to understand how the goals are managed. We combine several data sources in our case research to explore project implementation through an understanding of means-ends decoupling work. We collected in-depth interviews, archival records and field observations within the R&D research setting of an industrial R&D project in the period of 2015 to 2017. Our findings identify three types of means-ends decoupling work in R&D project implementation: ‘work on’ causal complexity, ‘work at’ behavioural invisibility, and ‘work with’ practice multiplicity. In addition, we uncover six dynamic micro-mechanisms that collectively influence the making and nature of means-ends decoupling work and therefore serve to allow for the fluid switching of work as the institutional conditions permit. Overall, our findings have significant implications for understanding means-ends decoupling as a highly skilled network competence for managing R&D project implementation goals.     

A contemporary justice perspective on dual ladders for R&D professionals

Research and development (R&D) professionals play a key role in companies' innovation performance. Whereas prior research has indicated the potential benefits of dual ladder career systems to retain and motivate R&D professionals, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the design properties of dual ladders that facilitate such positive effects. The purpose of this study is to address this research gap by exploring how organizations can design dual ladders to enhance R&D professionals' organizational commitment and career satisfaction. Drawing on contemporary justice theory, we point to two factors integral for the successful application of dual ladders: the perceived equality of the technical ladder and the transparency of the dual ladder. These factors are related to R&D professionals' organizational commitment and career satisfaction. Furthermore, this study investigates whether these relationships are moderated by R&D professionals' age and self‐directedness in career management as well as firm size. The hypotheses are tested in a cross‐level study with 9 heads of R&D departments, 32 human resource managers, and 382 R&D professionals from 32 organizations. Based on the analyses, this study finds positive relationships between the perceived equality and the transparency of the dual ladder with R&D professionals' organizational commitment and career satisfaction. In addition, the findings show that the effects of the perceived equality of the technical ladder on R&D professionals' career satisfaction are weaker at high levels of self‐directed career management. The study contributes by developing theory on the consequences of dual ladders' design properties and moderating influences thereon. Thus, this research has implications for the literature on innovation management by expanding the knowledge on the interplay between career management and the human side of innovation.     

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.     

Interdisciplinary research redefined: Multi-skill, problem-focussed research in the STRAP framework

A new framework for the study of interdisciplinary research processes is presented 'STRAP' emphasizes the combination of identifiable skills—substantive knowledge and techniques—that must come together to solve a complex research problem. This framework holds promise of better accommodating non-academic settings and yielding new insights into the management of complex R&D projects.