Strategic collaboration of R&D entities for technology convergence: Exploring organizational differences within the triple helix

Journal of Management and Organization

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 227-249

  Jeong, Seongkyoon ^a  

^a Korea Institute of Machine and Materials   (South Korea)

Author keywords

interdisciplinary; R D alliance; R D strategy; technology convergence

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907334123     PISSN: 18333672     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2014.31     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Arthur, B. W. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York, NY: Free Press.
2. Athreye, S., & Keeble, D. (2000). Technological convergence, globalisation and ownership in the UK computer industry. Technovation, 20, 227-245.
3. Bainbridge, W. S. (2006). Transformative concepts in scientific convergence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1093, 24-45.
4. Becker, W., & Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms-Evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33(2), 209-223.
5. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22, 1237-1263.
6. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477-1492.
7. Bercovitz, J. E. L., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36(7), 930-948.
8. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4-5),627-655.
9. Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1-67.
10. Carayol, N., & Thi, T. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research? Research Evaluation, 14(1), 70-79.
11. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
12. Curran, C. S., Bröring, S., & Leker, J. (2010). Anticipating converging industries using publicly available data. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(3), 385-395.
13. Curran, C. S., & Leker, J. (2009). Employing STN AnaVist to forecast converging industries. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 637-664.
14. Curran, C. S., & Leker, J. (2011). Patent indicators for monitoring convergence-Examples from NFF and ICT. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 256-273.
15. Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31-61.
16. Eom, B., & Lee, K. (2010). Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy, 39(5), 625-639.
17. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and 'Mode 2' to a triple helix of university-industry- government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109-123.
18. Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., & Luzzi, A. (2007). The market for patents in Europe. Research Policy, 36(8), 1163-1183.
19. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London, England: Sage.
20. Goldfarb, B. (2008). The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy, 37, 41-58.
21. Greene, W. (2003). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. Grigg, L. (1999). Cross-disciplinary research. A discussion paper (Australian Research Council Commissioned Report No. 61). Canberra, Australia: Australian Research Council.
23. Hacklin, F. (2008). Management of convergence in innovation: Strategies and capabilities for value creation beyond blurring industry boundaries. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.
24. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A., & Vonortas, N. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29, 567-586.
25. Hakanson, L. (1993). Managing cooperative research and development: Partner selection and contract design. R&D Management, 23(4), 273-285.
26. Karvonen, M., Lehtovaara, M., & Kässi, T. (2012). Build-up of understanding of technological convergence: Evidence from printed intelligence industry. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 9(3), 1-24.
27. Katz, M. L. (1996). Remarks on the economic implications of convergence. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(4), 1079-1095.
28. Kim, Y., Jung, U., & Jeong, S. (2009). A study on the status and supporting strategy of national R&D programs related to the convergence technology. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 12(2), 413-429.
29. Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries. Knowledge, disciplinarities and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
30. Kodama, F. (1991). Analyzing Japanese high technologies: The techno paradigm shift. London, England: Pinter Publishers.
31. Kodama, F. (1992). Technology fusion and the new R&D. Harvard Business Review, 70(4), 70-78.
32. Kodama, F. (1995). Emerging patterns of innovation: Sources of Japan's technological edge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
33. Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 319-332.
34. Lee, D. H., Bae, Z., & Lee, J. (1991). Performance and adaptive roles of the government-supported research institute in South Korea. World Development, 19(10), 1421-1440.
35. Lee, S., & Kim, M. S. (2012). Inter-technology networks to support innovation strategy: An analysis of Korea's new growth engines. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 88-104.
36. Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A. L., Zucker, L., & Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7, 428-443.
37. Lind, J. (2004). Convergence: History of term usage and lessons for firm strategists. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial ITS Conference, 4-7 September, Berlin, Germany.
38. Llerena, P., & Meyer-Krahmer, F. (2003). Interdisciplinary research and the organization of the university: General challenges and a case study. In A. Geuna, J. A. Salter & W. Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance (pp. 69-88). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
39. Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2), 247-264.
40. March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
41. Metzger, N., & Zare, R. N. (1999). Science policy-Interdisciplinary research: From belief to reality. Science, 283, 642-643.
42. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835-851.
43. Min, C. (2010). Analysis of the compensation level and portfolio for advanced S&T manpower. 18(1), 220-246.
44. Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32(8), 1481-1499.
45. Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237-1249.
46. Noh, J., Chung, M., & Rah, J. (2010). Analysis on the patterns of technological innovation in Korean manufacturing sector in accordance with technology intensity. Journal of Technology Innovation, 18(2), 33-58.
47. Nordmann, A. (2004). Converging technologies-Shaping the future of European societies (EUR 21357). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
48. Oh, D., Kim, Y., & Ahn, H. (2010). An analysis of international cooperation in the public research and development programs of Korea. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 18(2), 43-67.
49. Palmer, C. L. (1999). Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 242-253.
50. Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117-147.
51. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719-745.
52. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 66, 79-91.
53. Qin, J., Lancaster, F. W., & Allen, B. (1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 893-916.
54. Rhoten, D. (2004). Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition. Items-Social Science Research Council, 5(1-2), 6-11.
55. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Converging technologies for improving human performance. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
56. Rosenberg, N. (1963). Technological change in the machine-tool industry, 1840-1910. Journal of Economic History, 23(4), 414-443.
57. Rosenberg, N. (1983). Inside the black box-Technology and economics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
58. Rothaermel, F., & Deeds, D. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201-221.
59. Sakakibara, M. (2001). Cooperative research and development: Who participates and in which industries do projects take place? Research Policy, 30(7), 993-1018.
60. Sanchez, A. M., & Tejedor, A. P. (1995). University-industry relationships in peripheral regions: The case of Aragon in Spain. Technovation, 15(10), 613-625.
61. Sanz-Menéndez, L., Bordons, M., & Zulueta, A. M. (2001). Interdisciplinarity as a multidimensional concept: Its measure in three different research areas. Research Evaluation, 10(1), 47-58.
62. Seo, Y., & Yang, D. (2011). The empirical study on relationship between CT R&D subsidy program and R&D performance in S. Korea. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 19(2), 53-76.
63. Small, H. (1999). A passage through science: Crossing disciplinary boundaries. Library Trends, 48, 72-108.
64. Stevens, G. A., & Burley, J. (1997). 3,000 raw ideas 5 1 commercial success! Research-Technology Management, 40(3), 16-27.
65. Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 96-115.
66. Teece, D. F., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
67. Tegart, G. (2005). Converging technologies and their implications for technology transfer: The cases of European networks (N EuroNet) and NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno) technologies as drivers of change. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 7(4), 468-476
68. Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947-967.
69. Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109-124.
70. Tijssen, R. J. W. (1992). A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research. Research Policy, 21(1), 27-44.
71. Van Leeuwen, T., & Tijssen, R. (2000). Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: Analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation, 9(3), 183-187.
72. Van Rijinsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2010). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463-472.
73. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., & Rafols, I. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14-26.
74. Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), 171-174.
75. Winter, E. (2004). Public communication of science and technology. Science Communication, 25(3), 288-293.
76. Wolbring, G. (2008). Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21, 25-40.
77. Zahra, S. A. (1996). Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(4), 289-321.
78. Ziman, J. (1994). Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.