Search results

Biotech companies are generally faced with the paradoxes of simultaneously managing growth and innovation, as well as addressing explorative and exploitative aspects of innovation. Scholars have urged them to re‐evaluate their business model. The purpose of this paper is to explore how biotech companies in emerging economies address these paradoxes, focusing upon the nascent biotech industry in India, in order to investigate their growth and innovation patterns, as well as identify the challenges that they may face.

A qualitative data collection, using in‐depth interviews with representatives of organizations that deal directly with improving the quality of the business environment for biotech industry in India, as well as biotech entrepreneurs and leaders were undertaken. A total of 13 interviews provided insights related to innovation and growth that is discussed in the paper.

Data indicate that Indian biotech companies are ambidextrous and have managed to transcend the aforementioned paradoxes by developing and maintaining distinct organizational capabilities. They were found to pursue an integrated model of efficiency and innovation and utilize both exploitative and explorative aspects of innovation to fuel growth and innovation. The authors also found evidence of some of the characteristics of the “India Way”, proposed by Cappelli et al.

The authors conclude that Indian companies offer an opportunity for learning for American biotech companies with respect to building new competencies and balancing growth and innovation in today's competitive environment.

Despite being labeled as the “industry of the decade”, biotechnology has been neglected in technology and innovation literature. It is hoped that the paper's findings will generate interest in the study of biotech industries in emerging economies, to help scholars develop interesting new theoretical models of innovation and aid managers in coping with the innovation and change paradoxes that they are faced with in developing new products and services.

This Masterclass considers the lessons of two recent important books have contrasting but complementary insights to offer to company leaders and strategists on how to improve the odds for developing successful innovations in response to game changes in markets.”

In Dual Transformation: How to Reposition Today’s Business While Creating the Future (2017), disruptive innovation experts, Scott Anthony, Clark Gilbert and Mark Johnson offer corporate leaders a “dual transformation” template for simultaneously repositioning the traditional core business in the face of disruptive change, while also creating new businesses to harness the growth potential typically unlocked by such disruption. In The Power of Little Ideas: A Low-Risk, High-Reward Approach to Innovation (2017), innovation guru, David Robertson, and his collaborator, Kent Lineback, offer companies a “third way” for coping with historic market inflections by innovating around a core product to make it more compelling, rather than having to choose between attempting the radical or incremental innovation of the product itself.

The most powerful message that both books featured in this masterclass have to offer is that while it may be true, as they go on to observe, that large companies can’t innovate faster than the market, they can learn “to innovate better than the market,” through more imaginative use of legacy products, platforms and assets.

A “third way” to cope with market disruption is based on innovating around the core product, by surrounding it with a set of complementary innovations, rather than re-featuring the product itself. All of the complementary innovations operate together with the product “as a system or family to satisfy a compelling promise to the customer.”

Both Dual Transformation and The Power of Little Ideas, present different, but far from mutually exclusive, innovation strategies that can help many more great companies to survive disruptive competition.

Interview with Gary Pisano about his latest book, Creative Construction: The DNA of Sustained Innovation.

Pisano is the Harry E. Figgie Professor of Business Administration and senior associate dean for faculty development at Harvard Business School and one of the world’s leading experts in the fields of innovation, strategy, manufacturing and competitiveness.

The first characteristic of an effective innovation strategy is that it lays out clearly the priorities among different types of innovation opportunities.

If your base technologies are maturing, but customer needs are still not being met, then this suggests potential opportunities for radical innovation strategies.

Pisano is teaching corporate giants how to effectively innovate. His new book offers new ways of thinking about innovation and new models for discovering opportunities.

Corporations' emphasis on startup collaboration for corporate innovation has reached a new level in the context of digital transformation. The purpose of this paper is to examine three different models of corporate-startup collaboration and the models' effects on the case companies' capabilities for, and actual outcome in regards to their business transformations.

The theory and case studies on corporate-startup collaboration models are based on several years' empirical study on 30+ multi-national corporations in the Western world. Further, iterative literature reviews on digital and business transformation have been conducted, leading to the identification of two different, but complementing frameworks used to analyze each case's capabilities and outcome in regards to business transformation.

Collaboration with startups was found to positively affect the firms' business transformation. Further, the three-step analytical process is a valuable path to better understand, and improve, the cases' capability for, and outcome in regards to their business transformations.

The paper includes three case studies and a new process for analyzing their effects on capabilities for, and actual outcome in regards to business transformation. More research is needed, both on cases and on how to refine the analytical process.

The practical contributions from this paper are the in-depth description of the three operational cases, as well as insights on how each model's set up (approach) can affect both capabilities for, but also level of business transformation. As a result, a company might need a portfolio of different startup collaboration initiatives in order to manage a more holistic transformation of their business.

The paper's main theoretical and practical contributions are further knowledge on organizations and organizational practices for corporate-startup collaboration, as well as a three-step process for analyzing each case's effect on the respective firm's capabilities for, and actual outcome in regards to business transformation.

The aim of this paper is to document the author's keynote address in Accounting at the 16th Annual Conference on Pacific Basin Finance, Economics, Accounting and Management “Innovation for a Sustainable Future: Visions for 2020”, July 3‐4, 2008, Brisbane, Australia.

In keeping with the theme of the Conference, the paper considers two areas – global accounting and financial reporting, and regulation and institutions.

As business has become more global and financial markets have developed world‐wide, comparable accounting and financial information across countries and companies is a logical step to continue to support and advance business. With this shift, though, the world moves towards a monopoly in accounting standards and standard setting.

The potential costs, problems, and possible solutions need to be considered. Current regulatory environments and institutions offer limited ability to effectively monitor such a monopoly. So innovation must occur.

The paper shows that an infrastructure to support global investor protection and convergence of investor protections and rights can offer such innovation to support and sustain global business.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a contingent model that facilitates knowledge of the strategies followed by the research technology organizations (RTOs) of Valencia and the Basque Country, Spain, to adapt to the turbulence of their environment.

The research includes context, organizational and results variables and identifies some barriers that the RTOs encounter in collaborating with SMEs and also the best practices they follow to develop competitive advantages. The methodology used consisted of applying the proposed model to the 27 RTOs of both autonomous regions; a factor analysis was then performed to determine whether there exist groups of related (correlated) variables; finally, the authors proceeded to carry out a hierarchical cluster analysis to observe how the 27 RTOs are distributed according to their ability to adapt and respond to environmental turbulence.

The technological policy must consider the characteristics of each region to propose more efficient and equitable mechanisms that allow the RTOs to face new challenges.

This study proposes a theoretical model suitable for RTOs to respond to environmental changes, to the current economy globalization and to cope with new challenges. This proposal means that RTOs must manage an appropriate combination of key factors, including the development of more proactive innovation strategies, an organic organizational structure to relate better with other innovation agents and universities, which help them to work more efficiently with SMEs and to obtain a higher innovative performance.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effect of competition on both innovation inputs and outputs in Chilean firms. More specifically, the authors investigate whether there is an inverted-U relationship at different stages of the innovation process.

The sample covers 1,347 firms that responded to both the 4th Chilean Longitudinal Enterprise Survey and the 10th Chilean Innovation Survey. The CDM model (Crépon et al., 1998) is applied to correct for selectivity bias and endogeneity. Competition is proxied by measures of market concentration. The robustness of the results is checked using four alternative indicators.

The results strongly suggest that competition and both R&D and innovation intensities are linked by an inverted U-shaped curve. The estimated effects of competition on innovation output and labor productivity are rather ambiguous. Thus, market structure would be influencing the firms’ incentives to innovate, but not necessarily their innovation performance.

The model is based on cross-sectional data, hampering the possibility to control for unobserved heterogeneity. Competitive pressures from potential entrants and foreign markets are not captured in the analysis.

Moderate levels of competition would be the optimal market structure in terms of promoting more business R&D and innovation spending.

A previously unutilized data set covering the whole economy is used. Estimations are executed at three different stages of the innovation process. Two types of innovation input and four types of innovation output are taken into account.

El objetivo de este artículo es analizar los efectos de la competencia sobre los insumos y los productos de la innovación en empresas chilenas. Más específicamente, los autores investigan si existe una relación en forma de U invertida en diferentes etapas del proceso de innovación.

La muestra abarca 1.347 empresas chilenas que respondieron la 4ª Encuesta Longitudinal de Empresas y la 10ª Encuesta Nacional de Innovación. El modelo CDM (Crépon et al., 1998) es aplicado con el fin de corregir por sesgo de selección y endogeneidad. La competencia es representada por medidas de concentración de mercado. La robustez de los resultados es verificada usando cuatro indicadores alternativos.

Los resultados sugieren claramente que la competencia y las intensidades de I+D e innovación están vinculadas por una curva en forma de U invertida. Los efectos estimados de la competencia sobre la producción de innovación y la productividad laboral resultan ser más bien ambiguos. Así, la estructura de mercado estaría influyendo en los incentivos de las empresas para innovar, pero no necesariamente en los resultados del proceso de innovación.

El modelo se basa en datos de corte transversal, dificultando la posibilidad de controlar la heterogeneidad no observada. Las presiones competitivas de potenciales entrantes y mercados extranjeros no se reflejan en el análisis.

Niveles moderados de competencia serían la estructurada de mercado óptima para promover un mayor gasto en I+D e innovación en el sector empresarial.

Se usa un conjunto de datos no utilizado previamente y que cubre toda la economía. Las estimaciones se realizan en tres etapas diferentes del proceso de innovación. Se tienen en cuenta dos tipos de insumos de innovación y cuatro tipos de resultados de innovación.

Competencia, I+D, Innovación, Productividad, Chile

Trabajo de investigación

O objetivo deste artigo é analisar os efeitos da competição nos insumos e produtos de inovação em empresas chilenas. Mais especificamente, os autores investigam se existe uma relação na forma de um U invertido em diferentes estágios do processo de inovação.

A amostra inclui 1.347 empresas que responderam a 4ª Pesquisa Longitudinal de Empresas e 10ª Pesquisa Nacional de Inovação. O modelo CDM (Crépon et al., 1998) é aplicado para corrigir o viés de seleção e endogeneidade. A competição é representada por medidas de concentração de mercado. A robustez dos resultados é verificada usando quatro indicadores alternativos.

Os resultados sugerem claramente que a competição e as intensidades de P&D e inovação estão ligadas por uma curva em U invertido. Por sua vez, os efeitos estimados da concorrência na produção de inovação e na produtividade do trabalho revelam-se bastante ambíguos. Assim, a estrutura de mercado estaria influenciando os incentivos das empresas para inovar, mas não necessariamente nos resultados do processo de inovação.

O modelo é baseado em dados transversais, dificultando o controle da heterogeneidade não observada. As pressões competitivas de concorrentes potenciais e mercados estrangeiros não são refletidas na análise.

Níveis moderados de concorrência seriam a estrutura de mercado ideal para promover maior gasto em P&D e inovação no setor empresarial.

Este artigo usa um conjunto de dados anteriormente não utilizado e que abrange toda a economia. As estimativas são feitas em três etapas diferentes do processo de inovação. Dois tipos de insumos de inovação e quatro tipos de resultados da inovação são considerados.

Competição, P&D, Inovação, Produtividade, Chile

Trabalho de investigação

Innovation ecosystems have not been defined univocally. The authors compare the different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature, the link with open innovation, the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, and the need to orchestrate them properly. In this way, the purpose of this paper is to provide a highly needed, concise overview of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking.

A systematic screening of the literature searching for publications focusing on innovation ecosystems is carried out in the paper. The authors found 30 publications and compared the different approaches to innovation ecosystems: the authors classify them according to industries, the level of analysis, their central focus on innovation ecosystems, whether frameworks are developed in the publications, the main actors, focus on SMEs or large companies, the success of innovation ecosystems and the role of the orchestrator.

The authors found different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature. Some papers look at the link with open innovation, and others at the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, the role of orchestrators, etc. The authors also provide an overview about the industries, the level of analysis, the central focus of the research, the main actors in the networks and the success factors. The authors observe that most publications have been written in Europe and apply to European ecosystems. The approach in Europe is, to some extent, also different from the main focus of leading American scholars.

The authors compare different approaches to innovation ecosystems. This provides a highly needed understanding of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking. There are some limitations as well: the paper only does a literature review, and the authors are not developing a new framework to study innovation ecosystems.

The literature overview is not primarily focused on practitioners, but the tables in the paper provide a quick overview of good management practices for setting up and managing innovation ecosystems.

Innovations ecosystems are, in some cases, established to solve major societal problems such as changes in healthcare, energy systems, etc. Therefore, they require the interaction between different types of partners including universities, research institutes and governmental agencies. Studying innovation ecosystems is crucial to facilitate social or societal changes.

The paper presents a highly needed overview of the literature about innovation ecosystems and a concise examination of the different aspects that are studied so far.

This case study examines the background, start up, and growth of one of the fastest-growing companies in the United States, AdRoll. It explores the various strategic factors related to the growth of AdRoll and how these issues must be addressed in order to maintain its level of growth.This case study is especially interesting not only because it focuses on one of the fastest-growing firms in the country, but also because it addresses on an understudied topic within the field of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial growth.