Organising R&D Projects to Profit From Innovation: Insights From Co-opetition

Long Range Planning

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 216-233

  Cassiman, Bruno ^a   Di Guardo, Maria Chiara ^a   Valentini, Giovanni ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SIGNAL FILTERING AND PREDICTION; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

CO-OPETITION; INNOVATION PROCESS; PRACTICAL GUIDANCES; PROJECT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES; PROJECT PARTNERS; RESEARCH CENTRES; ST MICROELECTRONICS; TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS; TRADE OFFS; VALUE CHAINS; VALUE CREATIONS;

INNOVATION;

INNOVATION; PROFITABILITY; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 63249108213     PISSN: 00246301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barsh J., Capozzi M., and Mendonca L. How Companies Approach Innovation: A McKinsey Global Survey. McKinsey Survey on Innovation (2007)
2. Clarke-Hill C., Li H., and Davies B. The paradox of co-operation and competition in strategic alliances: towards. Management Research News 26 1 (2003) 1-20
3. Brandenburger A., and Nalebuff B. Co-opetition (1996), Currency Doubleday, New York
4. Dagnino G.B., and Padula G. On the nature and drivers of coopetition. International Studies in Management and Organization, Special Issue (2006)
5. Work has been done on the relationship between co-operation and competition in fields such as strategic management. Barbee E.L., and Rubel T. Co-opetition in action. The Journal of Business Strategy 18 5 (1997)
6. relationship marketing. Palmer A. Co-operation and competition: a Darwinian synthesis of relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing 34 5/6 (2000) 687-704
7. networks. Khanna T., Gulati R., and Nohria N. The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal 19 3 (1998)
8. and supply chain management. Martijn Rademakers F.L., and McKnight P.J. Concentration and inter-firm co-operation within the Dutch potato supply chain. Supply Chain Management 3 4 (1998)
9. as well as the professions. Gilbert Jr. D. Co-opetition. Business and Society 37 4 (1998) 468-470
10. Cassiman B., and Veugelers R. In search of complementarity in the innovation strategy: internal R&D & external knowledge acquisition. Management Science 52 1 (2006) 68-82
11. In previous literature, these two forces have been mostly analysed by the Resource-Based View perspective, as far as the search for external productive resources is concerned. Bates K.A., and Flynn E.J. Innovation history and competitive advantage: A resource-based view analysis of manufacturing technology innovations. Academy of Management Journal 235 (1995)
12. Dyer J.H., and Nobeoka K. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal 21 3 (2000) 345
13. and by the Transaction Costs Economics literature, with respect to the risk of opportunistic behaviour. Pisano G. The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1990) 153-176
14. Williamson O.E. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (1975), The Free Press, New York
15. Birkinshwaw J., Nobel R., and Ridderstrale J. Knowledge as a contingency variable: Do the characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure?. Organization Science 13 (2002) 274-289
16. Zander U., and Kogut B. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science 6 (1995) 76-92
17. Dagnino G.B., and Padula G. On the Nature and Drivers of Coopetition. International Studies in Management and Organization, Special Issue (2006)
18. For a discussion of the theoretical background of the knowledge attributes that are particularly relevant and influence the organisation of R&D projects, see. Cassiman B., Di Guardo M.C., and Valentini G. Building Competitive Advantage through Links with Science: A Project Level Approach. IESE Working Paper, mimeo (2006)
19. Howells J., James A., and Malik K. The sourcing of technological knowledge: distributed innovation processes and dynamic change. R&D Management 33 4 (2003) 395-409
20. Hall B.H., Link A.N., and Scott J.T. University as research partner. Review of Economics & Statistics 85 (2003) 485-491
21. Bower D.J. Successful Joint Ventures in Science Parks. Long Range Planning 26 6 (1993) 114-120
22. Santoro M.D., and Gopalakrishnan S. Relationship Dynamics between University Research Centers and Industrial Firm: Their Impact on Technology Transfer Activities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 1-2 (2001) 163-171
23. Dasgupta P., and David P.A. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23 (1994) 487-521
24. Arrow K. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (1962), Princeton University Press, Princeton 609-625
25. Miotti L., and Sachwald F. Cooperative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy 32 (2003) 1481-1499
26. Ghemawat P. Commitment. The Dynamics of Strategy (1991), The Free Press, New York
27. Robertson T.S., and Gatignon H. Technology development mode: a transaction cost conceptualization. Strategic Management Journal 19 (1998) 515-531
28. Williamson O.E. Economic Institutions of Capitalism (1985), The Free Press, New York
29. The use of different scales for novelty, originality and strategic value (1-3 scale) on the one hand and transferability (1-4 scale), on the other hand, is linked to the standardised internal ST procedures for classifying R&D projects.
30. Non-parametric tests for differences in means provide equivalent results.
31. As a robustness check, we estimated a multinomial logit model considering four possible outcomes: no co-operation, co-operation with a firm, co-operation with universities and co-operation with both a firm and university. The results are presented in the appendix. The baseline case / comparison group is 'no co-operation'. The model shows virtually equal results to the simple differences in means: basicness spurs co-operation, but the strategic importance of the project diminishes the propensity to co-operate.
32. Chung-Jen C. The effect of knowledge attribute, alliance characteristics, and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer performance. R&D Management 34 3 (2004) 311-322
33. Here, we assume that the paradoxical aspect of competition and co-operation can be juxtaposed in order to understand the strategic phenomena characterising actors' interactions. Actors co-operate in some activities and compete on other ones.
34. Smit H., and Trigeorgis L. Strategic options and games in analysing dynamic technology investments. Long Range Planning 40 1 (2007)
35. Delmas M.A. Exposing strategic assets to create new competencies: the case of technological acquisition in the waste management industry in Europe and North America. Industrial and Corporate Change 8 (1999) 635-652
36. N. Argyres and T. Zenger, Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Firm Boundaries: A Dynamic Perspective and Integration, Working paper (2007).
37. Pisano G.P. The R&D Boundaries Of The Firm: An Empirical Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 1 (1990) 153
38. Mohnen P., and Hoareau C. What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics 24 2,3 (2003) 133-145
39. Laursen K., and Salter A. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27 2 (2006) 131-150
40. Hall, Link and Scott (2003).
41. King G., Keohane R., and Verba S. Designing Social Inquiry (1994), Princeton University Press, Princeton