142 research outputs found
The initiation and evolution of interfirm knowledge transfer in R&D relationships.
No full textKnowledge; Knowledge transfer; R&D;
Organizing Open Innovation: Combining Value Creation and Value Appropriation
No full textThrough a symposium titled “Balancing value appropriation and organizational costs”, scholars from different filed of the Academy will discuss about Open Innovation, a pivotal term that has gained attention among researchers and practitioners alike. Key starting point for this discussion is that opening up organizational boundaries for innovation purposes triggers organizational costs and hence requires new balancing acts to appropriate value and improve performance.
The symposium will identify four research areas that are both central to the Open Innovation debate and relevant for strategy, innovation management and organization studies: (1) balancing specialization and integration (2) complementarity between inflows and outflows of knowledge (3) development of new business models into innovation networks (4) selective strategic openness
Building Appropriation Advantage:AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
No full textA Retrospective Examination of a Successful Developmental Reviewing Process
No full textIn this essay, we describe a retrospective examination of a review process for a manuscript that was published in the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) in 2015 (Hannah &Robertson, 2015). The two authors of the essay are (a) the first author of the JMS manuscript, David Hannah, and (2)the JMS editor of that manuscript, Dries Faems. We originally engaged in this examination to prepare for a presentation at the Strategy Process Interest Group workshop on“The Process of Publishing Process Research” during the 2015 Strategic Management Society meeting in Denver, Colorado. We have written this essay with a goal of sharing our observations about this review process. Although we share some of the content of the original manuscript herein, we focus most of our attention on describing each step in the review process from the perspective of the author as well as the editor. We conclude by offering what we hope are usefuland generalizable lessons about the challenges that authors and editors face in the review process, how to navigate them, and how to systematically improve the overall review process.We begin in July 2013, with JMS submission P0431, titled, “Why do Employees put Confidential Information at Risk? CI Protection and Confidentiality Tension in High-Tech Employees.” The paper reported the findings of a qualitative, theory-elaborating study involving 55 semistructured interviews with the employees of two high-tech companies
Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms
No full textThis paper analyzes the consequences for financial performance of technology strategies categorized along two dimensions: (1) explorative versus exploitative and (2) solitary versus collaborative. The financial performance implications of firms’ positioning along these two dimensions has important managerial implications, but has received only limited attention in prior studies. Drawing on organizational learning theory and technology alliances literature, a set of hypotheses on the performance implications of firms’ technology strategies are derived. These hypotheses are tested empirically on a panel dataset (1996-2003) of 168 R&D-intensive firms based in Japan, the US and Europe and situated in five different industries (chemicals, pharmaceuticals, ICT, electronics, non-electrical machinery). Patent data are used to construct indicators of explorative versus exploitative technological activities (activities in new or existing technology domains) and collaborative versus solitary technological activities (joint versus single patent ownership). The financial performance of firms is measured via a market value indicator: Tobin’s Q index.Innovation, Tobin’s q, R&D collaboration, exploration & exploitation
Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms.
No full textThis article analyzes the financial performance consequences of technology strategies categorized along two dimensions: (1) explorative versus exploitative and (2) solitary versus collaborative. The financial performance implications of firms’ positioning along these two dimensions has important managerial implications, but has received only limited attention in prior studies. Drawing on organizational learning theory and technology alliances literature, a set of hypotheses on the performance implications of firms’ technology strategies are derived. These hypotheses are tested empirically on a panel dataset (1996-2003) of 168 R&D-intensive firms based in Japan, the US and Europe and situated in five different industries (chemicals, pharmaceuticals, ICT, electronics, non-electrical machinery). Patent data are used to construct indicators of explorative versus exploitative technological activities (activities in new or existing technology domains) and collaborative versus solitary technological activities (joint versus single patent ownership). The financial performance of firms is measured via a market value indicator: Tobin’s Q index. The analyses confirm the existence of an inverted U-shape relationship between the share of explorative technological activities and financial performance. In addition, it is observed that most sample firms do not reach the optimal level of explorative technological activities. These findings point to the relevance of creating a balance between exploitation and exploration in the context of technological activities. Moreover, they suggest that, for the majority of R&D intensive firms, reaching such a balance between exploration and exploitation implies investing additional efforts and resources in exploring new knowledge domains. The analyses also show that firms, engaging more intensively in collaboration, perform relatively stronger in explorative activities. At the same time, a negative relationship between the share of collaborative technological activities and a firm’s market value is observed. Contrary to our expectations, it is collaboration in explorative technological activities, rather than collaboration in exploitative technological activities, that leads to a reduction in firm value. These findings question the relevance of open business models for technological activities. In particular, they suggest that the potential advantages of collaboration for (explorative) technological activities (i.e. access to complementary knowledge from other partners, sharing of technological costs and risks) might not compensate for the potential disadvantages, such as the incurred increase in coordination costs and the need to share innovation rewards across innovation partners.
Serendipitous value co-creation in an acquisition: the General Electric – Nuovo Pignone Case.
No full textMultistep Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Corporation Networks: When Do Subsidiaries Benefit From Unconnected Sister Alliances?
No full textIn this paper, we explore under which conditions subsidiaries of multinational corporations can benefit from the external networks of sister subsidiaries in terms of new knowledge generation. We focus on the phenomenon of unconnected sister alliances-that is, alliances of sister subsidiaries with whom the focal subsidiary lacks a recent history of internal R&D collaboration. Whereas unconnected sister alliances provide knowledge recombination opportunities for the focal subsidiary, realizing them is challenging because of particular knowledge transfer frictions. In this paper, we theorize on how particular conditions (i.e., headquarters proximity, knowledge overlap, size of focal subsidiary's own alliance network) influence the strength of these frictions, resulting in hypotheses on how these conditions moderate the relationship between the number of unconnected sister alliances and the generation of new knowledge by focal subsidiaries. We rely on a panel data set of 2,258 R&D subsidiaries belonging to 118 firms in the pharmaceutical industry to empirically test our hypotheses. Jointly, our findings enrich our current theoretical understanding of how different types of external linkages and their interactions shape subsidiaries' generation of new knowledge. We also illuminate the opportunities and challenges that multistep knowledge transfer processes entail
- …
