Learning to collaborate through collaboration: How allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms

Research summary : Strategic alliances have been recognized as a means for firms to learn their partners' proprietary knowledge; such alliances are also valuable opportunities for partner firms to learn tacit organizational routines from their counterparts. We consider how relatively novice technology firms can learn intraorganizational collaborative routines from more experienced alliance partners and then deploy them independently for their own innovative pursuits. We examine the alliance relationships between Eli Lilly & Co. (Lilly), a recognized expert in collaborative innovation, and 55 small biotech partner firms. Using three levels of analysis (firm, patent, and inventor dyad), we find that greater social interaction between the partner firm and Lilly subsequently increases internal collaboration among the partner firm's inventors. Managerial summary : Can collaborating externally advance internal collaboration? Yes. Our research found that collaboration among scientists at small, early‐stage biotechnology firms significantly increased after these firms formed highly interactive R&D alliances with a large pharmaceutical company known for its expertise in such collaboration. It is well known that alliances help new firms learn specific new technologies and commercialize innovations. Our study broadens the scope of potential benefits of alliances. New firms can also learn collaboration techniques, deploying them internally to enhance their own abilities in collaborative innovation. Managers should take this additional benefit into consideration in developing their alliance strategies. Pursuing alliance partners with expertise in collaboration and keeping a high level of mutual interactions with partner firm personnel should be important considerations to extract this value. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Innovation orientations and their effects on business performance: contrasting small‐ and medium‐sized service firms

This study examines the relative performance of small‐ versus medium‐sized service firms with respect to innovation orientations and their effect on business performance. We examine the effect of innovation on business performance between the two groups of firms, exploring differences in innovation orientation on performance between the groups of small‐ and medium‐sized firms. We also examine differences within each group, exploring the extent to which innovation focus differs within each group. The empirical data were drawn from 180 managers in Australian service small and medium enterprises. The findings suggest that while there is no difference between small‐ and medium‐sized firms with respect to their innovation orientations, significant differences exist between the firm's size with respect to the effect of innovation orientations on business performance. Specifically, exploitation innovation has a stronger effect on business performance among small firms compared with medium‐sized firms, and exploration innovation shows a stronger effect on business performance among medium‐sized firms compared with small firms. Overall, the findings show important relative differences between innovation orientations and business performance across different sized firms.     

The relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes: exploring the effects of sustainability orientation and firm size

Being sustainability‐oriented has become a key strategy for many firms. Equally, innovation culture and innovation outcomes have long been recognized as important contributors to the growth of firms. However, the literature on sustainability and innovation provides limited understanding of the important relationship between sustainability orientation, innovation culture and innovation outcomes. Given that large firms and small firms differ in building and employing their strategic assets, firm size matters in understanding the relationship. Through the lens of resource‐based view, we develop a theoretical model embedding the four components and test it using data from a global survey: the 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study. Our research contributes to sustainability literature and innovation theory by providing an integrated framework to explicate the mechanism through which the innovation culture of the firm impacts on innovative performance through the sustainability orientation of the firm. The findings advance our understanding of the extent to which sustainable orientation can explain the relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes. Our evidence shows that the innovation culture of a firm facilitates the sustainability orientation of the firm and that the converse also applies. The research also contributes to our knowledge of the differences between large and small firms in leveraging their strategic assets in terms of innovation culture and sustainability orientation to facilitate superior innovation outcomes. Although firm size moderates the relationship between innovation culture and innovation outcomes, the research shows that this no longer holds when sustainability orientation is included in the relationship. A strong sustainability orientation can be a competitive advantage for firms in the R&D Management delivery of superior innovation outcomes.     

Product Innovation Processes in Small Firms: Combining Entrepreneurial Effectuation and Managerial Causation

This article reports a multimethod study of product innovation processes in small manufacturing firms. Prior studies found that small firms do not deploy the formalized processes identified as best practice for the management of new product development (NPD) in large firms. To explicate small firms' product innovation, this study uses effectuation theory, which emerged from entrepreneurship research. Effectuation theory discerns two logics of decision‐making: causation, assuming that means are selected to attain goals; and effectuation, assuming that goals are created based upon available means. The study used a process research approach, investigating product innovation trajectories in five small firms across 352 total events. Quantitative analyses revealed early effectuation logic, which increasingly turned toward causation logic over time. Further qualitative analyses confirmed the use of both logics, with effectual logic rendering product innovation resource‐driven, stepwise, and open‐ended, and with causal logic used especially in later stages to set objectives and to plan activities and invest resources to attain objectives. Because the application of effectuation logic differentiates the small firm approaches from mainstream NPD best practices, this study examined how small firms' product innovation processes deployed effectuation logic in further detail. The small firms: (1) made creative use of existing resources; (2) scoped innovations to be realizable with available resources; (3) used external resources whenever and wherever these became available; (4) prioritized existing business over product innovation projects; (5) used loose project planning; (6) worked in steps toward tangible outcomes; (7) iterated the generation, selection, and modification of goals and ideas; and (8) relied on their own customer knowledge and market probing, rather than early market research. Using effectuation theory thus helps us understand how small firm product innovation both resembles and differs from NPD best practices observed in larger firms. Because the combination of effectual and causal principles leverages small firm characteristics and resources, this article concludes that product innovation research should more explicitly differentiate between firms of different sizes, rather than prescribing large firm best practices to small firms.     

The impact of R&D‐specific factors on the attractiveness of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises as partners vis‐à‐vis alliance formation in large emerging economies

This study examines the impact of research and development (R&D)‐specific factors in determining the likelihood of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) from developed countries to be attractive partners vis‐à‐vis forming alliances with SMEs from large emerging economies (LEEs). This study is founded on the knowledge‐accessing theory of alliance formation, which emphasises the higher efficiency gains of knowledge application as opposed to knowledge generation. We extend this theory to SMEs on the basis that smaller firms, because of their resources constraints and drive to survive, are likely to use alliances to access external knowledge bases leading to new product development (NPD) opportunities because of the low feasibility of acquiring knowledge. As a mix of complex knowledge is necessary to develop most modern products and services, SMEs are also likely to adopt a more flexible operational approach and to accept compromises to forge knowledge‐accessing alliances. We illustrate this theoretical development using primary data collected from British and German biotechnology SMEs, declaring the intention prospectively to form alliances with their counterparts in Brazil. Binary logistic regression was used to identify the factors influencing the likelihood of a firm as an attractive alliance partner. Our results indicate that R&D‐specific factors influence the likelihood of firms to be attractive alliance partners. In particular, firms showing an in‐house innovation history focused on one or few products are more likely to be attractive alliance partners with LEE firms than those that do not. Another R&D‐specific predictor that enhances the chances of alliance partner attractiveness with LEE firms is the firm's focused searching and identifying capability relative to technology or equipment that demonstrates good prospects to improve the firm's line of products. A third predictor refers to the firm's awareness regarding non‐cost obstacles for its own technological development. Implications for policy makers and practitioners are also discussed.     

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.     

How do international joint ventures create shareholder value?

This study attempts to identify conditions under which announcements of international joint venture (JV) formation lead to increases in shareholder value of participating U.S. firms. It does so by combining the singular theoretical foci of previous work on the topic and specifying previously unconsidered, but conceptually important, influences on firms' expected JV performance. The study's findings indicate support for the hypothesized effect of variables in partners' task‐related, competitive, and structural context(s), but not those in these firms' partner‐related and institutional context(s). Specifically, partner–venture business relatedness, the pursuit of R&D‐oriented activity, greater equity ownership, and large firm size, all are found to have a positive impact on firms' JV‐based value creation. Although this study finds support for the performance impact of firm‐level competition, the direction of this impact is contrary to that hypothesized. No support is found for hypothesized effect of partner–partner business relatedness, previous JV experience, partners' relative firm size, (national) cultural relatedness, and JV host country political risk. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Joining Forces or Going It Alone? On the Interplay among External Collaboration Partner Types,Interfirm Governance Modes,and Internal R&D

This paper adds to the emerging literature stream advocating a contingency view on open innovation. Drawing on the relational view of the firm, this study sheds light on the complex interplay among collaboration partner types (market‐ and science‐focused innovation partners), governance modes (informal, self‐enforcing and formal, contractual collaboration governance), and internal research and development(R&D). More specifically, it is proposed that the use of governance modes tailored to both the characteristics of each innovation partner type and the specific innovation objectives pursued by the focal firm (incremental and radical new product development) can increase the payoff from innovation collaboration. Moreover, appropriate collaboration governance is expected to reduce the focal firm's vulnerability to possible negative side effects often assumed to be associated with the simultaneous pursuit of external collaboration and internal R&D, among which most notably the not‐invented‐here (NIH) syndrome. Cross‐industry evidence from 2502 German firms underlines the critical role of collaboration governance—a contingency factor that is at the heart of the relational view, yet has remained surprisingly absent from the open innovation debate so far.     

Innovation objectives,knowledge sources,and the benefits of breadth

Given the inherent risk of innovative activity, firms can improve the odds of success by pursuing multiple parallel objectives. Because innovation draws on many sources of ideas, firms also may improve their odds of successful innovation by accessing a large number of knowledge sources. In this study, we conduct one of the first firm‐level statistical analyses of the impact on innovation of breadth in both innovation objectives and knowledge sources. The empirical results suggest that broader horizons with respect to innovation objectives and knowledge sources are associated with successful innovation. We do not find diminishing returns to breadth in innovation objectives, which suggests that firms may tend to search too narrowly. We interpret these results in light of well‐known cognitive biases toward searching in relatively familiar domains. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Innovation Management Practices Compared: The Example of Project‐Based Firms*

The importance of project‐based firms is increasing, as they fulfill the growing demands for complex integrated systems and knowledge‐intensive services. While project‐based firms are generally strong in innovating their clients' systems and processes, they seem to be less successful in innovating their own products or services. The reasons behind this are the focus of this paper. The characteristics of project‐based firms are investigated, how these affect management practices for innovation projects, and the influence of these practices on project performance. Using survey data of 203 Dutch firms in the construction, engineering, information technology, and related industries, differences in characteristics between project‐based and nonproject‐based firms are identified. Project‐based firms are distinguished from nonproject‐based firms on the basis of organizational configuration, the complexity of the operational process, and the project management capabilities of the firm. Project‐based firms also differ with regard to their level of collaboration and their innovation strategy, but not in the level of autonomy. A comparison of 135 innovation projects in 96 of the firms shows that project‐based firms do not manage their innovation projects different from other firms. However, the effects of specific management practices on project performance are different, particularly the effects of planning, multidisciplinary teams and heavyweight project leaders. Differences in firm characteristics provide an explanation for the findings. The implication for the innovation management literature is that “best” practices for innovation management are firm dependent.     

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.     

In Search of Innovation and Customer‐related Performance Superiority: The Role of Market Orientation,Marketing Capability,and Innovation Capability Interactions

Understanding the mechanisms through which firms realize the value of their market‐based knowledge resources such as market orientation is a central interest of innovation scholars and practitioners. The current study contends that realizing the performance impact of market orientation depends on know‐how deployment processes and their complementarities in functional areas such as marketing and innovation that co‐align with market orientation. More specifically, this study addresses two research questions: (1) to what extent can market orientation be transformed into customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes via marketing and innovation capabilities; and (2) does the complementarity between marketing capability and innovation capability enhance customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes? Drawing upon the resource‐based view and capability theory of the firm, a model is developed that integrates market orientation, marketing capability, innovation capability, and customer‐ and innovation‐related performance. The validity of the model is tested based on a sample of 163 manufacturing and services firms. In answer to the first research question, the findings show that market orientation significantly contributes to customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes via marketing and innovation capabilities. This finding is important in that market‐based knowledge resources should be configured with the deployment of marketing and innovation capabilities to ensure better performance. In answer to the second research question, the findings indicate that market orientation works through the complementarity between marketing and innovation capabilities to influence customer‐related performance but not innovation‐related performance. Managers are advised to have a balanced approach to managing the deployment of capabilities. If they seek to achieve superiority in customer‐related performance, marketing capability, innovation capability, and their complementarity are essential for attracting, satisfying, building relationships with, and retaining customers. On the other hand, this complementarity would be considerably less important if firms placed greater emphasis on achieving superiority in innovation‐related performance. In contrast to many existing studies, this study is the first to model the roles of both innovation capability and marketing capability in mediating the relationship between market orientation and specific performance outcomes (i.e., innovation‐ and customer‐related outcomes).     

CEO founder status and firm financial performance

Founders create their organizations, yet are often expected to eventually become liabilities to these same organizations. Past empirical research on the relationship between CEO founder status (i.e., is the CEO also the founder?) and firm performance has yielded inconsistent results. This study of 94 founder‐ and nonfounder‐managed firms finds that founder management has no main effect on stock returns over a 3‐year holding period, but that firm size and firm age moderate the CEO founder status–firm performance relationship. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

What they know vs. what they do: how acquirers leverage technology acquisitions

Existing research suggests that in acquisitions of small technology‐based firms by large established firms post‐merger integration both enables and hinders acquirers' efforts to leverage the technology of acquired firms. This apparent paradox can be resolved once we account for the qualitatively distinct ways in which acquirers leverage technology acquisitions. Integration helps acquirers use the acquired firm's existing knowledge as an input to their own innovation processes (leveraging what they know), but hinders their reliance on the acquired firm as an independent source of ongoing innovation (leveraging what they do). We also show that experienced acquirers are better able to mitigate the disruptive consequences of the loss of autonomy entailed by integration, though we find no evidence that they achieve greater coordination benefits from integration. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high‐technology industry

This paper investigates the relationship between intercorporate technology alliances and firm performance. It argues that alliances are access relationships, and therefore that the advantages which a focal firm derives from a portfolio of strategic coalitions depend upon the resource profiles of its alliance partners. In particular, large firms and those that possess leading‐edge technological resources are posited to be the most valuable associates. The paper also argues that alliances are both pathways for the exchange of resources and signals that convey social status and recognition. Particularly when one of the firms in an alliance is a young or small organization or, more generally, an organization of equivocal quality, alliances can act as endorsements: they build public confidence in the value of an organization's products and services and thereby facilitate the firm's efforts to attract customers and other corporate partners. The findings from models of sales growth and innovation rates in a large sample of semiconductor producers confirm that organizations with large and innovative alliance partners perform better than otherwise comparable firms that lack such partners. Consistent with the status‐transfer arguments, the findings also demonstrate that young and small firms benefit more from large and innovative strategic alliance partners than do old and large organizations. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Make,buy, organize: The interplay between research,external knowledge,and firm structure

We bridge current streams of innovation research to explore the interplay between R&D, external knowledge, and organizational structure—three elements of a firm's innovation strategy, which we argue should logically be studied together. Using within‐firm patent assignment patterns, we develop a novel measure of structure for a large sample of American firms. We find that centralized firms invest more in research, and patent more per R&D dollar, than decentralized firms. Both types access technology via mergers and acquisitions, but their acquisitions differ in terms of frequency, size, and integration. Consistent with our framework, their sources of value creation differ: while centralized firms derive more value from internal R&D, decentralized firms rely more on external knowledge. We discuss how these findings should stimulate more integrative work on theories of innovation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Knowledge spillover in corporate financing networks: embeddedness and the firm's debt performance

Building on social embeddedness theory, we examine how the competencies and resources of one corporate actor in a network are transferred to another actor that uses them to enhance transactions with a third actor—a strategic process we dub ‘network transitivity.’ Focusing on the properties of network transitivity in the context of small‐firm corporate finance, we consider how embedded relations between a firm and its banks facilitate the firm's access to distinctive capabilities that enable it to strategically manage its trade‐credit financing relationships. We apply theory and original case‐study fieldwork to explore the types of resources and competencies available through bank–firm relationships and to derive hypotheses about how embedded bank–firm relationships affect the strategy of small‐ to medium‐sized firms. Using a separate large‐scale data set, we then test the generalizability of our hypotheses. Our qualitative analyses show that embedded bank–firm ties provide special governance arrangements that facilitate the firm's access to bank‐centered informational and capital resources, which uniquely enhance the firm's ability to manage trade credit. Consistent with our arguments, our statistical analyses show that small‐ to medium‐sized firms with embedded ties to their bankers were more likely to take lucrative early‐payment trade discounts and avoid costly late‐payment penalties than were similar firms that lacked embedded ties—suggesting that social embeddedness beneficially affects the financial performance of the firm. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Impact of Employees' and Managers' Training on the Performance of Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Enterprises: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment in the UK Service Sector

We investigate the relationship between employees' and managers' training and firm performance using a policy intervention that randomly assigned training support to small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises in the UK accommodation and food service sector. Because the number of firms self‐selected into training exceeded available places, training was randomly assigned to some firms, resulting in a randomized natural experimental design that allowed us to identify the average effect of training on treated firms. Our empirical results suggest that employees' training had a stronger positive impact on firms' labour productivity and profitability than that of managers'.     

The (Unknown) Providers to Other Firms' New Product Development: What's in It for Them?

For every inbound activity by a firm in open innovation, a reciprocal outbound activity by another firm must be generated. The reciprocal outbound activities range from transferring of knowledge and ideas to solutions delivered to other firms' new product development projects. This paper names the firms that produce the reciprocal outbound activity for “providers,” and is the first to empirically investigate such providers of ideas, solutions, and technologies for other firms' open innovation activities. The literature review shows a surprising shortage of research on who the providers are, how they engage with other firms, and not least what potential benefits can be achieved from supporting other firms' innovation activities. The paper uses a quantitative survey on Danish small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) carried out in 2010 to identify the providers, the role they take on, and the main benefits the providers gain. This paper finds that firms that are providers are indeed an under‐researched and important phenomenon for firms' innovation activities. Compared to receivers of knowledge, the providers are younger, have a higher R&D intensity, adopt more open innovation practices, have higher absorptive capacity, and fewer barriers toward knowledge sharing as demonstrated by the NIH and NSH syndromes. Finally, although only tentatively, the paper finds that the provider firms are more product innovative compared to nonproviders. The paper further finds that more projects, more embedded relationships, and mutual rather than one‐way exchange relationships significantly raise the probability that a firm experiences a substantial benefit from providing to other firms' new product development projects. The overall ambition of the paper at this point is to inspire other researchers to pursue the agenda on the provider perspective for future research. To support such research, the paper suggests a broadening of the research perspectives from the receiver of knowledge, in the literature on interorganizational relationships and open innovation, to include the provider, and even suggests some preliminary ideas for such research. Hence, the contribution of this paper lies not only in opening a new research topic but also in identifying some first characteristics of the phenomenon adding a substantial perspective to the literature on open innovation and interorganizational relationships. The paper formulates three indicative recommendations for managers that consider becoming a provider to other firms' NPD.