核心技术、互补资产与后发企业的超越追赶

核心技术与互补资产是后发追赶过程中两种不同的主导策略,后发企业往往面临两种策略如何选择与平衡的难题。本文通过海天塑机集团2001~2017年在全电动注塑机技术领域追赶的案例研究,发现后发企业由后二次创新向一次创新的超越追赶动态过程中,主导追赶策略经历了从核心技术到互补资产再到二者并重的演化;从组织双元视角看,在该过程中,企业经历了从探索与利用序列交替的间断型平衡模式向探索与利用共时进行的双元型平衡模式的转变。本文研究发现不仅揭示了后发企业从后二次创新向一次创新的超越追赶机制,同时深化了我们对后发追赶动态性的理解。     

互补性资产与既有企业突破性创新关系的研究

分析企业在突破性技术创新出现后绩效下滑的成因,认为当既有企业在技术变革中经历了技术劣势后,这种劣势在何种程度上转化为商业劣势取决于既有企业拥有的互补性资产。若既有企业拥有的专业化互补性资产在突破性创新出现后仍保留其价值,那么这些资产会使既有企业免遭竞争力破坏;只有当技术能力遭到破坏且专业化资产的价值降低时,既有企业才会遭受重大损失。     

战略柔性对企业获取创新收益的影响研究

 在快速变化的环境中,创新对企业保持竞争优势有重要的作用。然而,创新企业有时会无法获取创新的收益。本文认为企业的战略柔性会对企业获取创新收益产生重要影响。其中协调柔性能够帮助企业获取创新的收益,尤其是突变创新的收益;而资源柔性的影响却较为复杂：资源柔性可以帮助企业获取渐进创新的收益,而对企业获取突变创新的收益则有着不利的影响。     

Profiting from technological innovation by others: The effect of competitor patenting on firm value

In 1986, Teece proposed a seminal framework for analyzing why innovators may fail to benefit from their innovations. He argued, in part, that firms with the requisite complementary assets can often expropriate an innovator's returns especially when appropriability regimes are weak. In this paper, we explore the implications of this framework from the perspective of an incumbent firm—more precisely, of investors in that firm—facing innovation by established corporate rivals and by inventors from outside its industry. We demonstrate that the financial-market value of publicly traded firms depends on patented innovation by competitors (both established rivals and industry outsiders). Our empirical study generates three main results. First, the financial-market value of an incumbent is negatively associated with “important” patenting by outside inventors. Second, in industries characterized by weak appropriability regimes or by a strong reliance on complementary assets, this relationship is reversed: important patenting by outsiders is positively associated with the incumbent's financial-market value. Third, the effect of outsiders’ patented innovation on the focal incumbent is qualitatively different than that of established rivals’ patented innovation on the incumbent. These results are consistent with implications of Teece [Teece, D., 1986. Profiting from Innovation, Research Policy] and with recently developed models that formalize elements of his framework. More generally, these results support theories about both the market-stealing and spillover effects of innovation.     

Market for technology 2.0? Reassessing the role of complementary assets on licensing decisions

The ability to access specialized complementary assets has been key to explaining how firms benefit from their technological innovations. When firms lack complementary assets the more likely they have to rely on markets for technology to profit from their R&D investments. We extend this view documenting the emergence of a new type of industry intermediary, Contract Development & Manufacturing Organizations (CDMOs), which provide access to complementary assets on a per-use basis. CDMOs allow firms to contract for complementary assets at variable costs without the need to invest in such assets internally. This opens up new product development paths, in which firms do not out-license their products to firms with complementary assets but sustain their development in-house using CDMOs. We highlight that the expansion of services offered by CDMOs changes the nature of the industry's source of competitive advantage and provide empirical evidence that the expansion of CDMOs is associated with a decline in the number of out-licensing deals among US biopharmaceutical firms. In so doing, the study explains how innovation intermediaries like CDMOs can have a profound effect on an industry's specialized complementary assets and the market for technology.     

环境规制、绿色金融发展与企业技术创新

以制造业上市公司为研究样本,对环境规制对于企业技术创新的影响以及绿色金融在其中的调节作用进行实证检验。研究发现：环境规制对企业技术创新具有显著的促进作用,这种促进作用在强融资约束企业中表现相对较弱;绿色金融发展对环境规制对于企业技术创新的促进效应具有显著地正向调节作用,且这种正向调节作用在强融资约束企业中表现得更为明显;与低环境规制强度地区相比,强环境规制地区的绿色金融发展对于环境规制与企业技术创新关系的正向调节作用相对更大。     

Strategic risk management using complementary assets: Organizational capabilities and the commercialization of human genetic testing in the UK

Teece's complementary asset framework explains how firms use assets to appropriate the benefits of innovation. This paper extends Teece's framework to show how firms also use complementary assets to disappropriate the risks of technical change. Based on case studies of the commercialisation of genetic testing in the UK the paper shows how firms can strategically alter the social distribution of risk to their advantage by managing distinct types of risk using different institutions with diverse risk management capabilities. We highlight the specific risk management capabilities of the state that are not available to either firms or markets, and their role in supporting technical change. Implications for policy and the academic understanding of technical change are discussed.     

经济政策不确定性对研发投资平滑的影响研究

   研发投资平滑是企业在不确定条件下维持研发持续性、规避调整成本的策略性行为。鉴于中国转轨经济特征下企业对经济政策具有的高度敏感性,考察经济政策不确定性与企业研发投资平滑关系,对理解经济政策不确定环境下企业研发投资动态特征具有重要意义。文章利用沪深A股上市公司经验数据,运用面板模型考察经济政策不确定性对企业研发投资平滑的影响。结果显示：（1）经济政策不确定性上升对企业研发投资平滑产生了强化作用;（2）与国有企业、高市场化水平地区企业相比,这种强化作用在民营企业、低市场化水平地区企业中表现得更为明显。本文丰富和拓展了经济政策不确定性及研发投资平滑领域研究,为高度经济政策不确定性环境下保障企业研发创新持续性提供有益启示。     

Innovating against European rigidities: Institutional environment and dynamic capabilities

European firms are confronted to the paradox of a strong R&D in many areas but a low level of innovation. Building on the dynamic capability approach, I propose an institutional approach where innovation is linked to cultural, organizational, and regulatory factors. These include managers' attitude toward risk and uncertainty, the ability to develop capabilities and access complementary assets, and a favorable regulatory environment. Using European microdata on how 6860 managers perceive factors hampering innovation, this paper shows that the risk-averse attitude of European firms and their difficulty to develop dynamic capabilities may explain the weakness of European innovation. Institutional factors such as pervasive rigidities and distortions that hamper the functioning of markets, may also prevent innovative responses. The use of manager's perceptions seems particularly well suited in the context of innovation where choices are taken with limited information. Conclusions drawn from this perspective call for policies that will take into account the system in which innovation can take place.     

If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies

This empirical study examines small firms’ strategies for capturing returns to investments in innovation. We find that small firms’ strategies are qualitatively different from those found in earlier studies of both small and large firms. Most of the small firms examined here find informal means of protection, such as speed to market or secrecy, more important than patenting. Only firms with university cooperation—typically R&D intensive and science-based small firms—were likely to identify patents as the most important method of appropriating innovation returns in their field. Thus, the strategic choice for most small firms is between secrecy and speed to market. Firms that cooperate in innovation with horizontal partners or significantly depend on vertical partners tend to prefer speed, whereas process innovators with modest R&D investments or few cooperative R&D activities display a preference for trade secrets. Indeed, cooperation activities greatly influence the choice of intellectual property strategy for small firms. Earlier research has emphasized patents and trade secrets as key strategies of appropriation, yet these strategies do not appear to be very beneficial for small firms engaged in cooperative innovation. These results raise policy questions regarding the functionality of the existing system of intellectual property rights.     

Government policies towards industrial innovation: a review

Existing economic theories show that continuing innovation, diffusion, and technical and managerial improvement are necessary for economic growth and international competitiveness in the industrially advanced countries. But knowledge of why, where and how governments should intervene in the processes of industrial innovations stems more from trial and error than from systematic empirical information of the nature and extent of the hindrances to economically and socially desirable innovations, and of the effectiveness of alternative government policies to remove them. Nonetheless, past empirical studies do offer some clues.Differences amongst industrial sectors. The sources of new technology vary widely amongst inustrial sectors: in the costs of innovation, in the relative importance of outside suppliers of equipment and materials, of large and small firms, and of full-time R & D departments as compared to part-time innovative activities (sect. 7, 8). Similarly, the conditions for successful innovation vary amongst sectors (sect.6). Thus, government policies designed to influence innovation are likely to act with different intensities in different industries.The management of innovation. Nonetheless, there are some features common to innovation in different industries. Considerable costs beyond R & D are often necessary before the innovations reach commercial use (sect.4). And the following managerial characteristics are in general associated with successful innovation: a deliberate policy of seeking innovations; close and careful attention to customer requirements; good personal communications both within the firm and with outside sources of relevant knowledge; a style of management that is ‘organic’ and ‘participatory’ rather than ‘hierarchical’ and ‘authoritarian’; strong project leadership; and a strong engineering capability (sect. 6).R & D managers are still unable to predict the outcome of R & D projects to a useful degree of accuracy and, in the literature on methods of project selection, very little attention is paid to market uncertainties. Furthermore, a greater use of conventional investment appraisal criteria in deciding on R & D projects may re-inforce the already observed tendency in industry towards short-term, low-risk projects, to the neglect of longer-term, high-risk projects (sect. 5).Governments should therefore examine whether the benefits of policies towards education and management advisory services for innovation might outweigh their costs. They may also have a significant role to play in financing longer-term research that is basic to the development of industrial technology (subsect. 12.5).The nature of market and production demands. The direction of industrial innovation is often very sensitive to market and production demands (sect. 3). This fact, together with the high degree of market uncertainty facing innovating firms (sect. 5), suggest that governments can potentially influence both the pace and the direction of industrial innovation through their influence on the scale of industrial, consumer and public service demands. However, this potential influence will become real only if users of innovations are able to specify the innovations that they need, or to evaluate those that they get. This is generally the case for industrial demand, but not in consumer and public service markets, where fashion, insensitivity to users' needs and lack of technical competence often prevail. Government-funded technological institutes and laboratories are ideally placed to provide such technical competence (sub-sect. 12.3).Economic incentives and rewards for innovation. A whole range of economic factors are said to influence the resources, the incentives and the rewards for innovation: for example, the degree of monopoly or the degree of competition, the patent system, the level of profits, the level of taxation, and the level of demand. The empirical evidence on the effects of most of these factors on industrial innovation is either inconclusive or non-existent. However, in the USA a close relationship has been observed between growth of industry sales and growth of industry-financed R & D activities (sect. 10). The rate of growth of demand is also one of the key factors influencing the rate of diffusion of innovations amongst their potential population of users (sects. 11, 12.2).The government-financed scientific and technological infrastructure. Scientific and technological knowledge from outside of innovating firms is often crucial to the completion of successful innovations, and three UK studies show that a significant proportion of this outside knowledge comes from government-financed technological institutes and laboratories, and from the universities (sect. 3). If the same is true in other countries, it should be an essential feature of any government policy towards industrial innovation to know how effectively government-funded laboratories and universities provide supportive knowledge to industry, and how government laboratories should be organised and financed (subsect. 12.4).Direct government-financing of innovative activities in industry. Governments specifically finance R & D activities in industrial firms, although these expenditures are less than those for general industrial development (sect. 13). These R & D activities in industry are relatively more important in France and UK, than in F.R. Germany and the Netherlands.In the four countries, more than 70% of all civilian government R & D activities related to industry are spent on aircraft, space, nuclear energy and electronics (subsect. 14.4). In all these high technologies, governments attempted in the 1960's to implement ‘policies for innovation’, involving government procurement, industrial mergers and attempts at European co-operation, in addition to the financing of R & D (subsect. 14.5). Government expenditures on civilian R & D related to other industrial sectors are very much smaller in all four countries (subsect 14.4).Where should governments intervene? A, number of attempts have been made to develop a formal framework of criteria to assist governments in deciding where they should intervene in industrial innovation. They all run into the following difficulties: dealing with multiple policy objectives; assessing national costs and benefits; comparing with alternative policies, choosing appropriate policy instruments (sect. 17).How should governments intervene? Very little information is available on the effectiveness of various policy instruments that have been used by governments in order to promote innovation in industry. Although it is often possible to measure the inputs into such policies, the measurement of their outputs (or results) is more difficult. Nonetheless, detailed studies would enable some such measurements to be made, and internationally comparable studies would increase the range of experiences and the number of cases that could be examined (sect. 18).Why should governments intervene? A full appreciation of the nature and scale of hindrances to industrial innovation, on which governments should act to remove, requires direct information on what innovations are (or are not) being introduced by industry, and why they are (or are not) being inyroduced. This information can best be obtained from analyses of the behaviour of industrial firms. They would differ from most existing innovation studies that concentrate on asking how firms must behave in order to make successful innovation, by asking what innovations are attempted, and why firms are stimulated to attempt them (sect. 19).     

A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets

Since Teece's seminal paper explaining who were the gainers from technological innovation, increased globalization and the information and communication technology revolution have brought new ways for firms to organize and appropriate from innovation. A new more open model of innovation suggests that firms can benefit from sources of innovation that stem from outside the firm. The central theme of this paper is how firms try to unlock communities as complementary assets. These communities exist outside firm boundaries beyond ownership or hierarchical control. Because of practices developed by communities to protect their work, firms need to assign individuals to work in these communities in order to gain access to developments and, to an extent, influence the direction of the community. Using network analysis we show that some software firms sponsor individuals to act strategically within a free and open source software (FOSS) community. Firm sponsored individuals interact with more individuals than interact with them, and also they seek to interact with central individuals in the community. However, we can see differences in how individuals interact, depending on whether their affiliation is with a dedicated FOSS firm or an incumbent in the software industry. Apparently, some firm managers believe they need ‘a man on the inside’ to be able to gain access to communities.     

互补资产专用性、关系治理与商业模式设计

商业模式设计正在成为企业赢得持续竞争优势的来源。本研究从互补资产视角出发,基于178家中国企业的问卷调查数据,实证检验了互补资产专用性对商业模式设计的影响机制。研究结果发现：（1）互补资产专用性越高,商业模式设计的新颖性越低,商业模式设计的效率性则不受影响;（2）互补资产专用性对商业模式设计新颖性的影响受到关系治理的正向调节,互补资产专用性对商业模式设计效率性的影响受到关系治理的负向调节。本研究的管理启示是,企业需要充分考量专用性互补资产在商业模式设计中的作用,并且更加重视关系治理这类社会性、非经济因素的作用。     

企业研发投入结构特征与经济增长模式——基于中国与主要国家企业研发数据的比较

利用101个国家和地区18076个非金融企业2005~2014年的面板数据,主要将中国与美国、英国、日本、德国、印度6个国家企业的研发投入规模与强度的结构特征进行分析得到：第一,发达国家的跨国公司主导全球研发,中国顶级企业研发投资规模与之相比差距较大,经济增长缺乏引领全世界技术创新的核心企业的支撑,且依靠能源、原材料消耗和固定资产投资推动;第二,与发达国家企业研发投入的行业分布特征比较发现：中国能源行业企业的研发投入规模与发达国家企业相比差距较小,反映了国家对绿色经济增长模式的重视;中国信息科技行业企业的研发强度在本国所有行业的企业中较高,但企业研发投入规模过小,可能在一定程度上影响中国产业链的延伸;中国企业在医疗保健、消费者非必需消费品行业的研发投入规模和强度与发达国家差异较大,主要受人均收入水平决定的经济复杂度制约,这将影响中国产品品质与质量的升级;第三,与发达国家企业研发投入的年龄分布特征和规模分布特征比较发现,中国高龄企业、小型企业研发投资规模过低,新创企业、大型企业研发投资强度高。     

Manufacturing dynamics and spillovers: The case of Guangdong Province and Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan (HKMT)

In this paper we characterize the extent of economic integration between Guangdong, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan (HKMT). We do not find, for the period of 1999-2003, consistent evidence that economic activity on the part of HKMT-funded companies contributed to productivity growth in Guangdong domestic manufacturing firms. Furthermore, HKMT-funded companies were less active than Guangdong domestic companies in pursuing research and development (R&D) and innovation activities. Given that HKMT-funded companies in Guangdong are dominated by companies from Hong Kong, we end by linking our results to a discussion of recent innovation policy actions, both in Hong Kong SAR and Guangdong province.     

The innovative behaviour of tourism firms—Comparative studies of Denmark and Spain

Tourism firms operate in a competitive sector where innovating is often a condition for survival. This article presents a theoretical framework for understanding tourist firms’ innovative behaviour and innovation systems in tourism. The innovativeness of tourism firms and its determinants are investigated by analysing quantitative as well as qualitative data comparing Spain and Denmark. A taxonomy of tourism firms is suggested and the firms’ characteristics which influence their innovativeness are presented. Additionally, the role of innovation networks is discussed, as is the role of innovation systems. The article suggests that large size, professionalism, but also entrepreneurship among small tourism firms are important determinants of innovation. Varied innovation networks are another determinant as are supportive innovation systems. These determinants favour Spanish firms, which are more innovative than Danish ones. In the final section, policy recommendations are presented.     

Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile telecommunications market

We propose an extension of the Gans-Stern [Gans, J.S., Stern, S., 2003. The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy 32 (2), 333-350] framework that includes entry by existing firms. An incumbent firm possessing complementary assets and strong appropriability is in a formidable position [Teece, D.J., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy 15 (6), 285-305]. However, a de alio entrant can leverage complementary assets to enter along a new technological trajectory, and then develop appropriability. We illustrate how several mobile telecommunications firms (Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung) pursued this strategy to catch up with the market leader (Motorola). We also identify several shortcomings in Motorola's approach: it was too inward-looking in developing technologies, but ironically not inward-looking enough in exploiting its most valuable patents.     

研发费用加计扣除是否提升了企业创新能力?——创新链全视角

现有关税收优惠政策对企业创新活动影响的文献缺乏从整个创新链的全角度揭示税收优惠政策是否真正提高企业创新能力的探索。基于中关村科技型企业数据,本文选取税收优惠政策中典型的政策工具“研发费用加计扣除”作为研究对象,有别于已有主要从“投入”视角关注研发费用加计扣除引导作用的研究,从“投入-产出-收益”的创新链全视角,将创新过程分为技术研发阶段与技术转化阶段,以揭示研发费用加计扣除政策是否真的提升了企业创新能力。基于PSM-DID方法的实证研究结果发现：在投入端,研发费用加计扣除政策显著提高了企业的研发投入规模与强度;在产出端,研发费用加计扣除政策仅促进了研发产出规模的提升,而对于产出强度则无显著影响;在收益端,研发费用加计扣除对收益规模与强度同样有显著的促进作用。本文的发现肯定了我国研发费用加计扣除政策的引导作用,以及其在企业创新能力提升中发挥的积极作用。本文的研究思路为揭示政府创新激励政策的效果提供了新视角,研究发现为从创新链与企业创新能力的角度思考和改善政府研发税收优惠政策的管理和实施提供了新证据。     

Intangible assets and firm heterogeneity: Evidence from Italy

The positive impact of intangible assets on several measures of economic performance is well documented in the literature. Less clear is what initially leads firms to invest in intangible assets. The latter is particularly important because, at least for the Italian manufacturing sector, firms exhibit strong heterogeneity in their investments in intangible assets. In line with the capability-based theory of the firm, we argue that the firm's propensity to invest in intangible assets can be explained by factors that are internal and specific to the firm. Making use of a rich dataset, we test and provide support for our hypotheses. In particular, we find that the propensity to invest in intangible assets increases with the firm's size, human capital, and historical intangible asset base. This points towards the existence of a cumulative process of intangible asset accumulation, which may account for most of the heterogeneity observed in the data. The paper adds to the previous literature in two ways: first, it highlights the existence of strong intra-industry heterogeneity in intangible asset investments, and second, it offers an explanation for such heterogeneity.