The paradox of openness: Appropriability,external search and collaboration

To innovate, firms often need to draw from, and collaborate with, a large number of actors from outside their organization. At the same time, firms need also to be focused on capturing the returns from their innovative ideas. This gives rise to a paradox of openness—the creation of innovations often requires openness, but the commercialization of innovations requires protection. Based on econometric analysis of data from a UK innovation survey, we find a concave relationship between firms’ breadth of external search and formal collaboration for innovation, and the strength of the firms’ appropriability strategies. We show that this concave relationship is stronger for breadth of formal collaboration than for external search. There is also partial evidence suggesting that the relationship is less pronounced for both external search and formal collaboration if firms do not draw ideas from or collaborate with competitors. We explore the implications of these findings for the literature on open innovation and innovation strategy.     

Which types of knowledge-intensive business services firms collaborate with universities for innovation?

Drawing on data from an original survey of UK and US publicly traded knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) firms, we investigate what types of KIBS firms collaborate with universities and consider the collaboration important for their innovation. First, we find that science-based KIBS firms (those engaged in a science, technology, and innovation [STI] mode of organizational learning), like science-based manufacturing firms, are active collaborators with universities for innovation. This relationship is further enhanced if these firms also provide highly customized services. Second, in contrast to the existing literature suggesting that firms engaged in a doing, using, and interacting (DUI) mode of organizational learning do not regard collaboration with universities as important for their innovation, we find that KIBS firms engaged in a DUI mode of organizational learning and offering highly customized services are active collaborators with universities for innovation, despite the fact that they may not possess highly formalized scientific knowledge. These findings suggest that KIBS firms co-create knowledge with universities differently than manufacturing firms. Moreover, the findings highlight the wide variety of roles that KIBS firms play in innovation networks with universities.     

Best channels of academia-industry interaction for long-term benefit

Interactions between public research organizations and industry can be conceptualized as having three main stages: drivers of interaction, channels of interaction, and the perceived benefits from collaboration. Both of the agents differ in terms of the incentives they have to collaborate and the behaviors they adopt during the collaboration process. Following a three-stage model based on Crépon et al. (1998), this paper discusses the impact of drivers of collaboration on channels of interaction, and the impact of these channels on the perceived benefits by researchers and firms. The methodology also allows firm-level benefits from interaction to be connected with researchers’ characteristics via the analysis of four common channels of interaction for firms and researchers. The study is based on original data collected through two surveys, carried out in Mexico during 2008, of R&D and product-development managers of firms and of academic researchers. Our results show that all channels of interaction play an important role in determining benefits; however, they differ in terms of their impact on short- or long-term benefits for firms. The channels related to joint and contract R&D, property rights, and human resources are the best, as they have a higher impact on long-term benefits for firms. Policy implications derived from this study focus on specific actions that enhance those researchers’ characteristics related to the best channels for fostering long-term benefits for firms.     

Modular designs and integrating practices: Managing collaboration through coordination and cooperation

Collaboration in large-scale projects introduces challenges involving both coordination (the ability to collaborate) as well as cooperation (the willingness to do so). Existing research has shown how modular designs can improve coordination by locating interdependencies within rather than between different modules. Based on an in-depth case study of collaboration in a large-scale infrastructure project, our study highlights an effect of modularity on collaboration that previously has been overlooked. Specifically, we show that while modular designs may help overcome coordination challenges by reducing interdependencies between modules, they can in turn hamper collaboration by emphasizing specialization within modules. Therefore, though existing work typically perceives modularity and integration as opposites, we clarify how they can also act as complements. In particular, we show how firms need to complement modular designs with integrating practices that stimulate cooperation. Overall, we contribute to the literature on collaboration and modularity by explaining when and how organizations can combine modularity and integration.     

Firm exit from open multiparty alliances: The role of social influence,uncertainty, and interfirm imitation in collective technology development

This study examines exit dynamics in open multiparty alliances, an important form of interfirm collaboration that includes committee-based standard-setting organizations, research and technology consortia, and other types of open meta-organizations. Open multiparty alliances differ markedly from more commonly studied dyadic alliances and closed multiparty alliances due to the open nature of membership and the broad diversity of firms that collaborate towards shaping the trajectory of emerging technologies in a sector. Drawing from literature on interfirm imitation, we posit that under conditions of elevated uncertainty about the technologies under development and the ability of diverse alliance members to work together effectively, firms are subject to social influence from their industry peers and thus tend to imitate them in exiting open multiparty alliances. However, we also argue that firms that are central in the wider network of alliances have access to superior information on sector developments as well as key resources that immunize them from such social influence effects. Analyses of the exit dynamics of the nine most influential open multiparty alliances that shaped the global mobile phone sector between 2000 and 2012 support our predictions. Our findings contribute to research on interfirm collaboration in technology-intensive contexts, in particular on open collaboration between multiple partners.     

Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux

This paper provides a quantitative study (N = 268) of patterns of free revealing of firm-developed innovations within embedded Linux, a type of open source software (OSS). I find that firms, without being obliged to do so, contribute many of their own developments back to public embedded Linux code, eliciting and indeed receiving informal development support from other firms. That is, they perform a part of their product development open to the public—an unthinkable idea for traditionally minded managers. Such openness obviously entails the challenge of protecting one's intellectual property. I find that firms address this issue by revealing selectively. They reveal, on average, about half of the code they have developed, while protecting the other half by various means. Revealing is strongly heterogeneous among firms. Multivariate analysis can partly explain this heterogeneity by firm characteristics and the firm's purpose behind revealing. An analysis of reasons for revealing and of the type of revealed code shows that different types of firms have different rationales for openness. Implications for management are that the conflict between downsides and benefits of openness appears manageable. Provided selective revealing is practiced deliberately, the opportunities of open development dominate.     

University spillovers and new firm location

This paper examines the impact of locational choice as a firm strategy to access knowledge spillovers from universities. Based on a large dataset of publicly listed, high-technology startup firms in Germany, we test the proposition that proximity to the university is shaped by different spillover mechanisms—research and human capital—and by different types of knowledge spillovers—natural sciences and social sciences. The results suggest that spillover mechanisms as well as spillover types are heterogeneous. In particular, the evidence suggests that new knowledge and technological-based firms have a high propensity to locate close to universities, presumably in order to access knowledge spillovers. However, the exact role that geographic proximity plays is shaped by the two factors examined in this paper—the particular knowledge context, and the specific type of spillover mechanism.     

Identification of innovating firms through technological innovation indicators: an application to the Spanish ceramic tile industry

The identification of technologically innovating firms is related to the development of indicators of their innovation activity. In this study, we carry out a review of indicators of firms’ technological innovation activity and then classify them according to whether they are based on inputs or outputs of the innovation process, and to the sources of the information they consider, whether primary or secondary. Their applicability as indicators of firm innovation is analyzed in the Spanish ceramic tile industry for the period from 1994 to 1996. From the results obtained we are able to conclude that the method based on direct information—self-assessment by managers—is more effective in identifying both product and process innovators. Within the set of methods based on secondary information, the literature-based innovation output (LBIO) method is the one which provides the best results when identifying product innovators alone.     

The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life

While science-based entrepreneurial firms are a key feature of the modern economy, our insights into their organization and productivity remain limited. In particular, our understanding of the mechanisms through which academic inventors shape entrepreneurial firms established to commercialize their scientific ideas is based upon a traditional perspective that highlights the importance of human capital. Based on a study of biotechnology firms and their academic inventors, this paper examines the extent and mechanisms through which academic scientists contribute not only human capital but also social capital to entrepreneurial firms. The paper makes two contributions to our understanding of the academic-firm interface: First, it establishes that the social capital of academic scientists is critical to firms because it can be transformed into scientific networks that embed the firm in the scientific community through a variety of mechanisms. Second, the paper argues that an academic inventor’s career plays a critical role in shaping his social capital, thus scientific careers mediate the networks and potential for embeddedness that an academic inventor brings to a firm. Specifically, the foundations of an academic’s social capital can be traced to two sources: The first element that the firm may leverage is the academic’s local laboratory network—a network to current and former students and advisors established by the inventor through his laboratory life. The second form of social capital is a wider, cosmopolitan network of colleagues and co-authors established through the social patterns of collaboration, collegiality and competition that exemplify scientific careers. These findings suggest that scientific careers are central in shaping an academic’s social capital which can be translated into critical scientific networks in which entrepreneurial firms become embedded.     

Connection and stratification in research collaboration: An analysis of the COLLNET network

Co-authorship among scientists represents a prototype of a social network. By mapping the graph containing all relevant publications of members in an international collaboration network: COLLNET, we infer the structural mechanisms that govern the topology of this social system. The structure of the network affects the information available to individuals, and their opportunities to collaborate. The structure of the network also affects the overall flow of information, and the nature of the scientific community. We present a number of measures of both the macro- (whole-network) and micro- (actor-centered) structure of collaboration, and apply these to COLLNET. We find that this scientific community displays many aspects of a “small-world,” and is somewhat vulnerable to disruption should major figures become inactive. We also find inequality in the roles played by individuals in the network. The inequalities, however, do not create a closed and isolated “core” or elite.     

Professional networks, scientific collaboration, and publication productivity in resource-constrained research institutions in a developing country

We test the hypothesis that scientific collaboration is associated with increased publication productivity. We differentiate our approach from other studies by (a) incorporating professional networks in the productivity model, (b) casting productivity and collaboration as distinct phenomena, and (c) examining these phenomena in the context of resource-constrained research institutions in a developing country. We use survey data and employ negative binomial regression models. Results indicate that publication productivity is significantly linked to professional network factors, but there is no evidence of any association with scientific collaboration. We observe that most scientists collaborate in research projects despite coordination difficulties, and without any measurable impact on their productivity. Our interviews reveal that a possible answer to this puzzle appears to be rooted in a practice that views collaborative research projects not mainly as a means to producing knowledge and gaining recognition, but for acquiring professional opportunities and extrinsic rewards. Our findings suggest a new way of modeling publication productivity, with implications for science and innovation policy in both the developed and the developing world.     

Freelancers and the absorption of external knowledge: practical implications and theoretical contributions

The term absorptive capacity (AC) describes the process of utilising external knowledge. Although firms are becoming increasingly reliant on highly skilled freelancers as a source of external knowledge, the literature on AC has not incorporated this collaboration for freelancers. In this paper, we address this research deficit in two ways: First, we argue that the ability to collaborate effectively and efficiently with freelancers plays a crucial role in the process of absorbing external knowledge. Second, we argue that the example of freelancers challenges researchers to rethink the conceptualisation of organisational boundaries within the concept of AC. Our paper is based upon previous theoretical insights and exploratory empirical data from a research project on German IT freelancers. For the practice of knowledge management, our paper elaborates upon how organisations can enhance their AC by investing in practices and routines that contribute to successful collaboration with freelancers.     

Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital

“Scientific and technical human capital” (S&T human capital) has been defined as the sum of researchers’ professional network ties and their technical skills and resources [Int. J. Technol. Manage. 22 (7-8) (2001) 636]. Our study focuses on one particular means by which scientists acquire and deploy S&T human capital, research collaboration. We examine data from 451 scientists and engineers at academic research centers in the United States. The chief focus is on scientists’ collaboration choices and strategies. Since we are particularly interested in S&T human capital, we pay special attention to strategies that involve mentoring graduate students and junior faculty and to collaborating with women. We also examine collaboration “cosmopolitanism,” the extent to which scientists collaborate with those around them (one’s research group, one’s university) as opposed to those more distant in geography or institutional setting (other universities, researchers in industry, researchers in other nations). Our findings indicate that those who pursue a “mentor” collaboration strategy are likely to be tenured; to collaborate with women; and to have a favorable view about industry and research on industrial applications. Regarding the number of reported collaborators, those who have larger grants have more collaborators. With respect to the percentage of female collaborators, we found, not surprisingly, that female scientists have a somewhat higher percentage (36%) of female collaborators, than males have (24%). There are great differences, however, according to rank, with non-tenure track females having 84% of their collaborations with females. Regarding collaboration cosmopolitanism, we find that most researchers are not particularly cosmopolitan in their selection of collaborators—they tend to work with the people in their own work group. More cosmopolitan collaborators tend have large grants. A major policy implication is that there is great variance in the extent to which collaborations seem to enhance or generate S&T human capital. Not all collaborations are equal with respect to their “public goods” implications.     

Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program

In this paper we examine how incentives for collaboration shape collaborative behavior and researcher productivity in the context of EU-funded research networks. EU-funded research networks require researchers to collaborate as a condition for securing research funding. The presence of research funding, therefore, may influence collaborative behavior. Our approach involves isolating the effects of funding, collaboration and previous collaborations (prior to funding) on research output, and examining how the pattern of collaboration affects research productivity over time. Employing a panel of 294 researchers in 39 EU research networks over a 15-year period we find that while the impact of funding on productivity is generally positive the overall impact of collaboration within the funded networks is weak. When we delineate between pre-, during- and post-funding periods, however, we find some important differences. During the period of funding, collaboration did not lead to an increase in research production. In the post-funding period we find that although the number of collaborations decreases within the network, the impact of collaboration on productivity is positive and significant. Our findings suggest that collaborations formed to capitalize on funding opportunities, while not effective in enhancing researcher productivity in the short run, may be an important promoter of effective collaborations in the longer run.     

产学研合作成效关键影响因素研究——基于合作开展与合作满意的视角

利用湖北省产学研合作的经验数据,从合作开展与合作满意的视角研究了基于合作满意度的产学研合作成效的关键影响因素。结果表明,现阶段产学研合作的利益分配和合作信息渠道网络对合作各方满意度与合作成效的影响并不显著,企业与学研方的文化价值融合、科技中介机构和风险投资是基于合作满意度的产学研合作成效的三个关键影响因素,对产学研合作成效具有显著的正向影响。提出以科技中介与风险投资为"抓手"促进产学研合作发展,以参与产学研合作作为科技中介机构与风险投资两大行业发展的契机与切入点,并从政、产、学研角度探讨产学研合作成效提升对策。     

Same but different? Research and technology organizations,universities and the innovation activities of firms

Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs) and universities are important elements of countries’ innovation systems. As they are both halfway between science and industry, they are often considered to be the same thing. However, recent studies have stressed the differences between the two. In this paper, we analyze the innovative characteristics (impacts and types of innovation and internal R&D investments) of firms that collaborate with RTOs versus universities. Our study is based on statistical analysis of Community Innovation Survey micro-data (CIS 2012). Our results suggest that firms that see RTOs as more important sources of knowledge than universities have a higher probability of developing service innovation, invest less in internal R&D but are less likely to introduce new, groundbreaking innovations into the market. These results have significant policy and management implications, especially regarding the different but complementary contributions offered respectively by RTOs and universities.     

Do firms in clusters invest in R&D more intensively? Theory and evidence from multi-country data

This study aims to evaluate whether firms located in clusters invest more intensively in research and development (R&D) than their non-clustered counterparts. Specifically, it proposes a model of firm R&D and tests empirically its implications for the effect of being located in a cluster on firm R&D intensity. The key ideas underlying the theory are as follows: (1) due either to natural excludability or to a high degree of stickiness of R&D-opportunity-bearing technological knowledge, geographical proximity per se is limited in the (automatic) spillover of knowledge with promising R&D opportunities to nearby firms; (2) geographical proximity may, however, help enhance the effectiveness or efficiency of knowledge exchange through market mechanisms (e.g., through contract R&D, R&D collaboration); (3) potential advantages (or disadvantages) in firm R&D of being located in a cluster also depend on the degree of asymmetry in technological competence among firms located in the cluster. The key ideas are supported by an empirical analysis of a multi-industry, multi-country data set compiled by the World Bank. In particular, the results show that being located in a cluster per se actually has a negative effect on firm R&D intensity, which is in contrast to the conventional wisdom of pure or automatic localized knowledge spillovers, as far as firm R&D intensity is concerned.     

Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling

This paper presents an empirical analysis of the determinants of research cooperation between firms and Public research organisations (PROs) for a sample of innovating small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The econometric analysis is based on the results of the KNOW survey carried out in seven EU countries during 2000. In contrast to earlier works that provide information about the importance of PROs’ research, we know the number of firm/PRO collaborative research and development (R&D) projects. This allows us to study the determinants of firm collaboration with PROs in terms of both the propensity of a firm to undertake R&D projects with a university (do they cooperate or not) and the extent of this collaboration (number of R&D projects). Two questions are addressed. Which firms cooperated with PROs? And what are the firm characteristics that might explain the number of R&D projects with PROs? The results of our analysis point to two major phenomena. First, the propensity to forge an agreement with an academic partner depends on the ‘absolute size’ of the industrial partner. Second the openness of firms to the external environment, as measured by their willingness to search, screen and signal, significantly affects the development of R&D projects with PROs. Our findings suggest that acquiring knowledge through the screening of publications and involvement in public policies positively affects the probability of signing an agreement with a PRO, but not the number of R&D projects developed. In fact, firms that outsource research and development, and patent to protect innovation and to signal competencies show higher levels of collaboration.     

Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe

This study analyses the changing effect of physical distance and territorial borders (regional, national, language) on the intensity of research collaboration across European regions. Using data on all co-publications between 313 regions in 33 European countries for the period 2000-2007, we find that the bias to collaborate with physically proximate partners did not decrease, while the bias towards collaboration within territorial borders did decrease over time. Our results show that the ongoing process of European integration is removing territorial borders, but does not render collaboration less sensitive to physical distance. Given this general trend, there is considerable heterogeneity between regions and countries in their propensity to collaborate which we attribute to differences in size, quality and accessibility. The findings and conclusions are framed within the context of European research policies.     

企业本地与非本地研发合作的平衡互补效应研究

从创新地理视角出发,本文提出本地和非本地研发合作平衡互补与企业创新产出的关系及企业规模的调节作用,运用负二项回归模型对电动汽车上市企业面板数据进行实证检验。研究发现：企业本地与非本地合作互补对创新产出具有正向显著影响,而本地与非本地合作平衡则不利于企业创新产出;企业本地与非本地合作平衡和合作互补可以产生协同影响,对企业创新产出具有正向作用。同时,企业规模对本地与非本地合作互补程度与创新产出的关系有负向调节作用,但对合作平衡程度与创新产出关系的调节作用不显著。