In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R & D and external knowledge acquisition

Management Science

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 68-82

  Cassiman, Bruno ^a,b,c   Veugelers, Reinhilde ^b,c,d  

^a IESE BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c CEPR ^*  (Spain)

^d EUROPEAN COMMISSION   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Complementarity; Innovation; Research and development; Technology acquisition

Indexed keywords

COMPLEMENTARITY; INNOVATION; TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION;

DECISION MAKING; KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

EID: 33644541420     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0470     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Acs, Z., D. Audrctsch. 1987. Innovation, market structure and firm size. Rev. Econom. Statist. 71 567-574.
2. Allen, T. 1986. Organizational structure, information technology and R&D productivity. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 33 212-217.
3. Angrist, J. 2001. Estimation of limited dependent variable models with dummy endogenous regressors: Simple strategies for empirical practice. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 19(1) 2-16.
4. Arora, A. 1996. Testing for complementarities in reduced-form regressions. Econom. Lett. 50 51-55.
5. Arora, A., A. Gambardella. 1990. Complementarity and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. J. Indust. Econom. 38 361-379.
6. Arora, A., A. Gambardella. 1994. Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology. J. Econom. Behavior Organ. 24(1) 91-114.
7. Athey, S., S. Stern. 1998. An empirical framework for testing theories about complementarity in organizational design. Working paper 6600, National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston, MA.
8. Cockburn, I., R. Henderson. 1998. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior and the organization of research in drug discovery. J. Indust. Econom. 46 157-182.
9. Cockburn, I., R. Henderson, S. Stern. 2000. Balancing incentives: The tension between basic and applied research. Working paper 6882, National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston, MA.
10. Cohen, W., R. Levin. 1989. Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. R. Schmalensee, R. Willig, eds. Handbook of Industrial Organisation. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1060-1107.
11. Cohen, W., D. Levinthal. 1989. Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Econom. J. 99 569-596.
12. Crépon, B., E. Duguet, J. Mairesse. 1998. Research, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 7(2) 115-158.
13. Debackere, K., I. Fleurent. 1995. De CIS-enquete voor Viaanderen: een non-response analyse. Working paper, Vlerick Management School, Ghent, Belgium.
14. Freeman, C. 1991. Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues. Res. Policy 20(5) 499-514.
15. Gouriéroux, C., A. Montfort, E. Renault, A. Trognon. 1987. Generalized residuals. J. Econometrics 35 143-159.
16. Granstrand, O., E. Bohlin, C. Oskarsson, N. Sjöberg. 1992. External technology acquisition in large multitechnology corporations. R&D Management 22 111-133.
17. Ichniowski, C., K. Shaw, G. Prennushi. 1997. The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. Amer. Econom. Rev. 87 291-213.
18. Maddala, G. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
19. Milgrom, P., J. Roberts. 1990. The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80 511-528.
20. Milgrom, P., J. Roberts. 1995. Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure and organizational change in manufacturing. J. Accounting Econom. 19 179-208.
21. Miravete, E., J. Pernias. 2005. Innovation complementarity and scale of production. J. Indust. Econom. Forthcoming.
22. Novak, S., S. Stern. 2003. Complementarity among vertical integration decisions: Evidence from automobile product development. Working paper, Kellogg School of Management, Evanston, IL.
23. Pisano, G. 1990. The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35 153-176.
24. Porter, M., N. Siggelkow. 2000. Contcxtuality within activity systems. Acad. Management Proc. BPS F1-F5.
25. Rigby, D., C. Zook. 2002. Open-market innovation. Harvrd Bus. Rev. 80(10) 80-89.
26. Rosenberg, N. 1990. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Res. Policy 19 165-174.
27. Rothwell, R., C. Freeman, A. Horsley, V. T. P. Jervis, A. B. Robertson, J. Townsend. 1974. Sappho updated: Project Sappho: Phase II. Res. Policy 3(3) 258-291.
28. Schumpeter, J. 1943. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Allen and Unwin, London, UK.
29. Teece, D. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15 285-305.
30. Veugelers, R. 1997. Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Res. Policy 26(3) 303-316.
31. Veugelers, R., B. Cassiman. 1999. Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 28 63-80.
32. Williamson, O. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. The Free Press, New York.