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.     

The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: The moderating effects of structural holes on innovation generation based on external knowledge

Building on absorptive capacity and social network research, in this paper I investigate how individuals inside the organization use external knowledge to generate innovations. Through original sociometric data collected from 276 scientists, researchers, and engineers from the Research and Development division of a large multinational high‐tech company, I show that the effects of external knowledge on individuals' innovativeness are contingent upon individuals' position in the internal social structure. In particular, results indicate that the positive effects of external knowledge on innovation generation become more positive when individuals sourcing external knowledge span structural holes in the internal knowledge‐sharing network. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Paradox of Openness: How Product and Patenting Experience Affect R&D Sourcing in China?

External R&D sourcing may help firms compete in an environment characterized by rapid technological changes. Yet, prior studies have produced conflicting findings on how a firm's technological experience affects the extent to which the firm engages in external R&D sourcing. Although many highlight that firms with extensive technological experience are equipped with more technological knowledge, collaborative skills, and absorptive capacity, encouraging greater levels of external R&D, others suggest the opposite due to potential exchange hazards and partnership conflicts. Adopting an external partner's perspective, the current study reconsiders this “paradox of openness” by analyzing how a focal firm's product experience and patenting experience affect an external partner's tendency to provide external R&D services to the focal firm. Specifically, this study explore how a focal firm's knowledge protectiveness and tacitness embedded in its product and patenting experience influences the external partners' motivation for knowledge transfer. This study predicts that a firm's product experience increases the focal firm's external R&D sourcing because it provides high levels of knowledge tacitness and external openness and can encourage external partners to share and exchange knowledge with the focal firm. In contrast, a firm's patenting experience decreases the focal firm's external R&D sourcing because it denotes knowledge explicitness and protectiveness and may discourage external partners to share and exchange knowledge with the focal firm. This study further predicts that patenting experience has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between product experience and external R&D sourcing. Using a data set of 575 high‐tech firms in China, this study finds support for our predictions. Our findings contribute to the growing literature on the knowledge‐based view and technology entrepreneurship in emerging markets.     

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.     

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.     

When Does Search Openness Really Matter? A Contingency Study of Health‐Care Innovation Projects

Given the growing popularity of the open innovation model, it is increasingly common to source knowledge for new product ideas from a wide range of actors located outside of organizational boundaries. Such open search strategies, however, might not always be superior to their closed counterparts. Indeed, widening the scope of knowledge sourcing at the ideation stage typically comes at a price given the substantial monetary and nonmonetary costs often incurred in the process of identifying, assimilating, and utilizing external knowledge inputs. Considering both the benefits and costs of search openness, the authors develop a project‐level contingency model of open innovation. This model suggests that search openness is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U‐shape) related to new product creativity and success. They hence assume that too little as well as too much search openness at the ideation stage will be detrimental to new product outcomes. Moreover, they argue that the effectiveness of open search strategies is contingent upon the new product development (NPD) project type (typological contingency), the NPD project leader (managerial contingency), and the NPD project environment (contextual contingency). To test these propositions empirically, multi‐informant data from 62 NPD projects initiated in the English National Health Service (NHS) were collected. The econometric analyses conducted provide considerable support for a curvilinear relationship between search openness and NPD outcomes as well as for the hypothesized contingency effects. More specifically, they reveal that explorative NPD projects have more to gain from search openness at the ideation stage than their exploitative counterparts. Moreover, the project‐level payoff from search openness tends to be greater, when the project leader has substantial prior innovation and management experience, and when the immediate work environment actively supports creative endeavors. These findings are valuable for NPD practice, as they demonstrate that effective knowledge sourcing has much to contribute to NPD success. In particular, pursuing an open search strategy might not always be the best choice. Rather, each NPD project is in need of a carefully tailored search strategy, effective leadership, and a supportive climate, if the full value of external knowledge sourcing is to be captured.     

Learning from openness: The dynamics of breadth in external innovation linkages

We explore how openness in terms of external linkages generates learning effects, which enable firms to generate more innovation outputs from any given breadth of external linkages. Openness to external knowledge sources, whether through search activity or linkages to external partners in new product development, involves a process of interaction and information processing. Such activities are likely to be subject to a learning process, as firms learn which knowledge sources and collaborative linkages are most useful to their particular needs, and which partnerships are most effective in delivering innovation performance. Using panel data from Irish manufacturing plants, we find evidence of such learning effects: establishments with substantial experience of external collaborations in previous periods derive more innovation output from openness in the current period. © 2013 The Authors. Strategic Management Journal published by 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.     

The Innovation Value Chain in New Technology‐Based Firms: Evidence from the U.K.

Innovation is central to the survival and growth of firms, and ultimately to the health of the economies of which they are part. A clear understanding both of the processes by which firms perform innovation and the benefits which flow from innovation in terms of productivity and growth is therefore essential. This paper demonstrates the use of a conceptual framework and modeling tool, the innovation value chain (IVC), and shows how the IVC approach helps to highlight strengths and weaknesses in the innovation performance of a key group of firms—new technology‐based firms. The value of the IVC is demonstrated in showing the key interrelationships in the whole process of innovation from sourcing knowledge through product and process innovation to performance in terms of the growth and productivity outcomes of different types of innovation. The use of the IVC highlights key complementarities, such as that between internal R&D, external R&D, and other external sources of knowledge. Other important relationships are also highlighted. Skill resources matter throughout the IVC, being positively associated with external knowledge linkages and innovation success, and also having a direct influence on growth independent of the effect on innovation. A key benefit of the IVC approach is therefore its ability to highlight the roles of different factors at various stages of the knowledge–innovation–performance nexus, and to show their indirect as well as direct impact. This in turn permits both managerial and policy implications to be drawn.     

The impact of global and local cohesion on innovation in the pharmaceutical industry

In this paper, we examine how the configuration of intraorganizational networks, and in particular, cohesion among members of an organization, influences organizations' innovative output. We argue that the cohesion among R&D scientists could be at a local level or a global level, and that local and global cohesion may have different impacts on firms' innovation performance. We test our hypotheses by examining the structure of the R&D collaboration networks within firms that operated in the pharmaceutical industry between 1981 and 1989, and their innovative outcomes—patents that led to new product launches. We find that local cohesion has a positive impact on the innovative performance of a firm, and global cohesion has a negative impact. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Career paths, technological obsolescence and skill formation: R&D staff in Britain and Japan

This paper examines how scientists and engineers working in industrial R&D cope with the pressures of business and technological change and develop their careers. The data is drawn from a survey of nearly 1000 R&D staff working in large industrial corporations in Britain and Japan. Cross national comparisons are used to explore similarities and differences in coping strategies and in the human resource management challenges for companies. Particular attention is given to the problems of potential mismatch between RBD staff career orientations and available career opportunities.     

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

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

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.     

Work Roles and Careers of R&D Scientists in Network Organizations

Despite the burgeoning literature on the network organization as a new mode of innovation, we know little about how the flow of knowledge across organizational boundaries is intertwined with careers. This study explores the implications of the network model of R&D organization for the work roles and careers of R&D scientists within the changing relationship between industry and the academia. It examines how firms seek to resolve the tension between science and business by developing closer human resource ties with universities. It argues that firms have sought to construct "extended" internal labour markets (EILMs) between themselves and the universities with which they collaborate, leading to the formation of a hybrid scientific community straddling the two sectors.     

Why some firms never invest in formal R&D

In this paper we study the frequency of formal R&D investments. We link real options theory to the knowledge‐based view to explain how a firm's knowledge resources influence its frequency of investing in R&D to establish technological options. Specifically, we propose that a firm that lacks internal knowledge resources is more likely to never invest in R&D, a firm that has both internal and external knowledge resources is more likely to sometimes invest in R&D, while a firm that has internal knowledge resources but lacks external knowledge resources is more likely to always invest in R&D. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

An examination of the relationships between leadership style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R&D versus administrative environments

Academics and executives argue that effective leadership is a key predictor of R&D success as well as quality management. Recent research highlights transformational leadership as a highly effective style shown to predict performance in organizations. However, no study examined the role of transformational and transactional leadership in building quality climate in R&D versus non-R&D settings. We examined the relationship between leadership style and the establishment of a quality environment in an R&D setting based on an empirical study of 511 research engineers and scientists. It is found that both transformational leadership and transactional contingent-reward leadership are related to the establishment of a quality environment in the R&D part of a telecommunications firm. However, the impact of transactional contingent-reward leadership ceases to be significant once both leadership styles are considered simultaneously using structural equations. A transformational leadership style was also found to be related to employee satisfaction.     

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

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

R&D Partnerships and Innovation Performance: Can There Be too Much of a Good Thing?

R&D collaboration facilitates the pooling of complementary skills, learning from the partner as well as the sharing of risks and costs. Research therefore stresses the positive relationship between collaborative R&D and innovation performance. Fewer studies address the potential drawbacks of collaborative R&D. Collaborative R&D comes at the cost of coordination and monitoring, requires knowledge disclosure, and involves the risk of opportunistic behavior by the partners. Thus, while for lower collaboration intensities the net gains can be high, costs may start to outweigh benefits if firms perform a higher share of their innovation projects collaboratively. For a sample of 2735 firms located in Germany and active in a broad range of manufacturing and service sectors, this study finds that increasing the share of collaborative R&D projects in total R&D projects is associated with a higher probability of product innovation and with a higher market success of new products. While this confirms previous findings on the gains for innovation performance, the results also show that collaboration has decreasing and even negative returns on product innovation if its intensity increases above a certain threshold. Thus, the relationship between collaboration intensity and innovation follows an inverted‐U shape and, on average, costs start to outweigh benefits if a firm pursues more than about two‐thirds of its R&D projects in collaboration. This result is robust to conditioning market success to the introduction of new products and to accounting for the selection into collaborating. This threshold is, however, contingent on firm characteristics. Smaller and younger as well as resource‐constrained firms benefit from relatively higher collaboration intensities. For firms with higher collaboration complexities in terms of different partners and different stages of the R&D process at which collaboration takes place, returns start to decrease already at lower collaboration intensities.     

The relationship between knowledge sourcing and fear of imitation

When firms tap external knowledge sources, they risk spillovers of their own internal knowledge. If the value of this potential loss and the imitation capabilities of neighboring organizations are high, fear of imitation might overshadow the benefits of openness. In such situations, firms might voluntarily reduce their use of external sources, relative to knowledge available internally. Data pertaining to 4,623 European inventions and direct information about the use of knowledge sources confirm that firms reduce their use of external, relative to internal, knowledge when they conduct costly research projects in locations characterized by high levels of absorptive capacity in a specific technology. This study also reveals fear of imitation as a mediating factor of this behavior. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.