PROCESS LEARNING IN ALLIANCES DEVELOPING RADICAL AND INCREMENTAL INNOVATIONS: EVIDENCE FROM THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY (original) (raw)
Related papers
Knowledge and Process Management, 2006
This paper sets out to explore the extent to which the alliance partners' approaches to knowledge creation, as well as their ability to upgrade their collaborative R&D processes, vary by the novelty of technology developed within the partnership. The empirical data are based on a survey of 105 R&D partnerships in the global telecommunications industry. The results of this study show that the alliances developing radical innovations differ from alliances developing the incremental innovations in terms of their knowledge creation processes, partner and alliance characteristics, as well as process learning outcomes. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Organization Studies, 2013
Previous research has maintained that the capacity to manage alliances is a distinct capability, defined as the ability to identify, negotiate, manage, monitor and terminate collaborations. This paper focuses on an important but hitherto neglected aspect of alliance capability by investigating how partnering firms may learn how to better manage their dyadic R&D collaborations. In particular, we seek to test the Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) model of dynamic knowledge creation by establishing a link between the facilitation of four knowledge conversion processes – socialization, externalization, combination and internalization – and an improved capability to manage inter-organizational R&D processes. We specify and extend the model by identifying and testing several critical interactions between these knowledge conversion processes. Relying on data from 105 R&D partnerships in the global telecommunications industry, we suggest that the failure to support one of these knowledge conversio...
Production Planning & Control, 2005
can jointly learn to improve their R&D processes. Methodological triangulation is applied: By using the business process simulation method as well as interviews in a two-case study, a set of process improvements for the collaborative R&D process of the case companies is developed. One focus of this article is to introduce the use of the SimLab business process simulation method in the context of collaborative process innovation. The main finding of the case study is a set of direct process improvements that the case companies have come up with during the projects examined.
Innovative capabilities of a firm and the use of technical alliances
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2000
Relationships between types of innovative capabilities of firms, the amount and nature of technical alliance usage, and the extent and types of problems associated with those alliances are explored with firms in the semiconductor industry. Results show that, although firms need radical and/or incremental product and process innovation capabilities to compete successfully, they are likely to have core capabilities which are either product focused or process focused. Firms can reconcile radical and incremental R&D cultures, but find it more difficult to bridge the product-versusprocess divide. Firms with strong capabilities are found to engage in more technical alliances. This is particularly true of firms with radical innovation capabilities. The study also finds that firms engage in technical alliances more often to supplement rather than complement their capabilities. Firms experience more problems in acquiring product innovation capabilities through alliances meant for new technology development than they do in acquiring process innovation capabilities.
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 2021
Purpose-Drawing upon the importance of research and development (R&D) alliances in driving firm innovation performance, extant research has analyzed individually the impact of R&D alliance partner attributes on firm innovation performance. Despite such analyzes, research has generally underestimated the configurations of partner attributes leading to firm innovation performance. This research gap is interesting to explore, as firms involved in R&D alliances usually face a combination of partner attributes. Moreover, gaining a better understanding of how R&D partner attributes tie into configurations is an issue that is attracting particular interest in coopetition research and alliance literature. This paper aims to obtain a better knowledge of this underrated, but important, aspect of alliances by exploring what configurations of R&D alliance partner attributes lead firms involved in R&D alliances to achieve high innovation performance. To tackle this question, first, this study reviews the extant literature on R&D alliances by relying on the knowledge-based view of alliances to identify the most impactful partner attributes on firms' innovation performance. This paper then applies a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to explore the configurations of R&D alliance partner attributes that lead firms involved in R&D alliances to achieve high innovation performance. Design/methodology/approach-This study selects 27 R&D alliances formed worldwide in the telecom industry. This paper explores the multiple configurations of partner attributes of these alliances by conducting a fsQCA. Findings-The findings of the fsQCA show that the two alternate configurations of partner attributes guided the firms involved in these alliances to achieve high innovation performance: a configuration with extensive partner technological relatedness and coopetition, but no experience; and a configuration with extensive partner experience and competition, but no technological relatedness. Research limitations/implications-The research highlights the importance of how partner attributes (i.e. partner technological relatedness, partner competitive overlap, partner experience and partner relative size) tie, with regard to the firms' access to external knowledge and consequently to their willingness to achieve high innovation performance. Moreover, this paper reveals the beneficial effect of competition on the innovation performance of the firms involved in R&D alliances when some of the other knowledge-based partner attributes are considered. Despite these insights for alliance and coopetition literature, some limitations are to be noted. First, some of the partners' attributes considered could be further disentangled into sub-partner attributes. Second, other indicators might be used to measure firms' innovation performance. Third, as anticipated this study applies fsQCA to explore the combinatory effects of partner attributes in the specific context of R&D alliances in the telecom industry worldwide and in a specific time window. This condition may question the extensibility of the results to other industries and times. Practical implications-This study also bears two interesting implications for alliance managers. First, the paper suggests that R&D alliance managers need to be aware that potential alliance partners have multiple attributes leading to firm innovation performance. In this regard, partner competitive overlap is particularly important for gaining a better understanding of firm innovation performance. When looking for strategic partners, managers should try to ally with highly competitive enterprises so as to access their more innovative knowledge. Second, the results also highlight that this beneficial effect of coopetition in R&D alliances can be amplified in two ways. On the one hand, when the partners involved in the alliance have not yet developed experience in forming alliances. Partners without previous experience supply ideal stimuli to unlock more knowledge in the alliance because new approaches to access and develop knowledge in the alliance could be explored. On the other hand, this paper detects the situation when the allied partners are developing technologies and products in different areas. When partnering with firms coming from different technological areas, the knowledge diversity that can be leveraged in the alliances could drive alliance managers to generate synergies and economies of scope within the coopetitive alliance. Originality/value-Extant research has analyzed individually the impact of R&D alliance partner attributes on firm innovation performance but has concurrently underestimated the configurations of partner attributes leading to firm innovation The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
The Determinants of success in R&D alliances
2006
This study offers an examination of the determinants of innovative success in R&D alliances. The relative importance of a set of alliance design factors (e.g., alliance structure characteristics such as number and type of partners, and firm-level attributes such as prior alliance experience and existing R&D capabilities) and alliance management factors (e.g., frequency of communication among partners, effectiveness of governance arrangements). These factors are hypothesized to influence the alliance partners' ability to exchange knowledge and collaborate in R&D, and thereby influence their ability to produce innovations. The study uses a survey dataset of 397 firms involved in 142 R&D alliances that were supported by the Advanced Technology Program. Three measures of alliance success at the firm level are utilized: a perceptual measure of overall value, patent application, and financial value realized from technology commercialization. Alliance designers are largely successful in "optimally" choosing the structure of alliances. The empirical analysis shows that the number of alliance partners and the presence of competitor firms have little effect on alliance outcomes. Among the alliance management factors, effective governance arrangements and frequent communication are found to have an important and positive impact on alliance outcomes. Finally, the results show that more ambitious projects that "reach for the stars" have more successful outcomes. (Alliances, Innovation, Knowledge Management).
Origins of knowledge and innovation in R&D alliances: a contingency approach
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 09537325 2015 1011612, 2015
Innovative performance is influenced both by the origins of the existing knowledge that is combined to generate innovation and by how economic actors search for new knowledge. Drawing on a sample of inter-firm dyadic R&D alliances, we found that whereas the integration of geographically distant knowledge and of organisationally proximate knowledge in R&D alliances are negatively related to the alliance innovative performance, search span positively moderates both relationships. We conclude that, in order to make the most of broadspan searching, firms participating in R&D alliances should integrate geographically distant but organisationally proximate knowledge. By doing so, firms take advantage of the diversity and novelty that characterises geographically distant knowledge, while preserving considerable levels of relative absorptive capacity that are needed for them to understand, internalise, and effectively use partners' knowledge from different domains.
The Role of Strategic Alliances in High Technology New Product Development
The authors examined 905 new product innovations introduced since September 1988 to determine the influences on product innovativeness, with a specific interest in strategic alliances, or cooperative strategies. Findings suggest that single firms, horizontal cooperative strategies, small and mixed-sized firms, biochemical industries, cross-industry product offerings, cross-industry cooperations, the progression of time, and European firms tend to indicate significantly more innovative products. Implications are proposed for business practitioners and researchers with specific application to the diffusion of innovation.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1996
The authors examined 905 new product innovations introduced since September 1988 to determine the influences on product innovativeness, with a specific interest in strategic alliances, or cooperative strategies. Findings suggest that single firms, horizontal cooperative strategies, small and mixed-sized firms, biochemical industries, cross-industry product offerings, cross-industry cooperations, the progression of time, and European firms tend to indicate significantly more innovative products. Implications are proposed for business practitioners and researchers with specific application to the diffusion of innovation.