Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 performance. Therefore, this paper differs from previous studies, as it provides an understanding of the specific configurations of R&D alliance partner attributes leading firms involved in R&D alliances to achieve high innovation performance.

Studies on inter-firm relationships have recently shifted their attention from dyadic networks to more globally driven network structures. This condition occurs because embeddedness in global network structures may improve firm innovation and performance. In addition, the improvement of firm innovativeness and performance seems higher when globally networked firms both compete and cooperate between and among them. In this paper, we categorize the simultaneous interplay of cooperation and competition in the global arena as global network coopetition (GNC). Under GNC, multinational enterprises act jointly with their global partners-rivals to improve performance, at the same time by sharing complementary resources (cooperation side) and by undertaking independent actions to enhance their own performance (competition side). This paper aims to expand existing research on network and global coopetition by shedding light on the effects of coopetition between and among firms belonging to global network structures on value capture and innovation performance.

Using a sample of 100 firms belonging to 14 industries organized in 47 global networks of different sizes, the authors conducted a longitudinal empirical study over the period 2000-2014 covering 1,098 observations, 1,717 interfirm relationships and 78 inter-networks linkages. A multiple regression model on panel data with random effects was conducted on the sample of 1,098 observations related to the global automotive industry to test the research hypotheses.

Findings show that GNC enhances firm performance and innovation outcomes. In addition to GNC, structural characteristics such as network size, network position and network diversity have significant positive or negative effects on innovation and performance outcomes of firms belonging to these global network structures.

Our research offers a contribution to the literature dealing with global networked structures’ effects on firm innovation performance. In fact, it effectively complements prior work on outcomes of coopetition between firms embedded in complex network structures. It also advances research in the area by introducing the notion of GNC as a network by which firms can enhance their innovation performance and, therefore, their global innovation performance. This study has some limitations. First, we acknowledge that it is focused only on 14 global coopetitive networks. It could be promising to extend the scope to integrate other networks. Second, our measures of firm actions as based on a content analysis of news reports related to firms. It would be important to complement this data collection by conducting a qualitative analysis (interviews). Atlast, it could be promising to include the study of customer needs in the new product development process.

Our study also offers some insights into the management of coopetition. In fact, by taking into account the existence of a context in which global coopetition networks play a role, managers may be better positioned to effectively deal with the paradox of being a partner of their direct rivals to improve their firms’ innovativeness and, consequently, achieve good performance, on the one hand, and to maintain relationships within several networks by taking into account their structural properties such as centrality and diversity, on the other hand.

We contribute to extant network coopetition literature in two ways. First, we introduce the notion of GNC to detect coopetition occurrence in global network structures. GNC refers to a context where actors in various networks belonging to different industries and geographies cooperate in a one (or more) innovative project/s, while simultaneously keeping on competing within and between their networks. Second, we contribute to network coopetition by analyzing specific GNC effects on firm innovation performance. In so doing, we can provide a deeper analytical understanding of GNC performance effects on firms operating in global network contexts.

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, this study elaborates an integrative conceptual framework of tourism destination competitive productivity (TDCP) by blending established destination competitiveness frameworks, the competitive productivity (CP) framework and studies pertaining to big data and big data analytics (BDA) within destination management information systems and smart tourism destinations. Second, this study examines the drivers of TDCP in the context of the ongoing 4th industrial revolution by conceptualizing the destination business intelligence unit (DBIU) as a platform able to create sustained destination business intelligence under the guise of BDA, useful to support destination managers to achieve the tourism destination’s economic objectives.

In this work, the authors leverage both extant literature (under the guise of research on CP, tourism destination competitiveness [TDC] and destination management information systems) and empirical work (in the form of interviews and field work involving destination managers and chief executive officers of destination management organizations and convention bureaus, as well as secondary data) to elaborate, develop and present an integrative conceptual framework of TDCP.

The integrative conceptual framework of TDCP elaborated has been found helpful by a number of destination managers trying to understand how to effectively and efficiently manage and market a tourism destination in today’s fast-paced, digital and hypercompetitive environment. While DBIUs are at different stages of implementation, often as part of broader smart destination initiatives, it appears that they are increasingly fulfilling the purpose of creating sustained destination business intelligence by means of BDA to help tourism destinations achieve their economic goals.

This work bears several practical implications for tourism policymakers, destination managers and marketers, technology developers, as well as tourism and hospitality firms and practitioners. Tourism policymakers could embed TDCP into tourism and economic policies, and destination managers and marketers might build and make use of platforms such as the proposed DBIU. Technology developers need to understand that designing destination management information systems in general and more specifically DBIUs requires an in-depth analysis of the stakeholders that are going to contribute, share, control and use BDA.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study constitutes the first attempt to integrate the CP, TDC and destination management information systems research streams to elaborate an integrative conceptual framework of TDCP. Second, the authors contribute to the Industry 4.0 research stream by examining the drivers of tourism destination CP in the context of the ongoing 4th industrial revolution. Third, the authors contribute to the destination management information systems research stream by introducing and conceptualizing the DBIU and the related sustained destination business intelligence.

This chapter aims to identify the main determinants that define the architectural properties of network emergence and significantly influence the dynamics underlying network evolution in time. The identification and analysis of these determinants, as well as the dynamic processes tied to them, allows to appreciate the competitive bases and consequences of network morphology. To this purpose, using a complex systems perspective as an integrative conceptual approach, we represent networks as complex dynamic systems of knowledge and capabilities. We perform a comparative in-depth analysis of the processes underlying the emergence and evolution of STMicroelectronic's global network and of Toyota's supplier network in the US so as to allow an elucidatory empirical assessment of the theoretical representation elaborated in the article.

Various authors have brought forth the idea that the increase in context turbulence and the relentless change in today's economic and competitive environments have rendered it essential for an effective firm strategy to combine both value appropriation and value creation (Porter, 1996; Moran & Ghoshal, 1999; Venkataraman & Sarasvathy, 2001; Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001b). Nonetheless, the methodological bases and the assumptions that characterize contributions concerning value appropriation and value creation are notably different and in many respects opposite to one another. These profound methodological differences hinder the possibility of a combined consideration of value appropriation and value creation issues within a coherent interpretative framework. By reinterpreting more conventional strategy studies in the light of the Austrian process view, this article builds a process framework which is able to consider and render mutually compatible both value appropriation and value creation within the unitary process of firm development. In addition, the use of the Austrian approach as an interpretative lens enables an evolution and extension of the resource-based theory that consents it, not only to grasp the mechanisms behind value appropriation, but also to suggest new ways of viewing post-industrial firm behavior that help to interpret its dynamic and proactive role in the value creation process.

This paper takes into consideration the main views underlying the theory of the resource based firm within strategy studies, underscoring their fundamental monotemporal nature and proposing a way to elaborate a multi‐temporal view of the firm. By analyzing the link between the time concepts used as bases for the formulation of studies within the strategy field and the types of actor behavior implicitly (or explicitly) entailed by such time concepts, the paper shows the inadequacy of any one of the two monotemporal views of the resource‐based firm to encompass all of the main actor behaviors on which the firm's survival and success increasingly rests. The paper draws on the Austrian process view in economic studies to formulate a methodological framework which consents the elaboration of a multi‐temporal view of the resource based firm, in which different time concepts are bridged and in which all main actor behaviors crucial for prolonged firm success are encompassed. Finally, the paper shows how the multi‐temporal view of the firm consents with the re‐interpretation and maintenance of both the static and the dynamic concepts elaborated within the strategy literature and, eventually, also expands the causal relationships between strategic management and a number of other areas of inquiry in the management field, such as time‐space relationships, the relationship between strategy and entrepreneurship, and the relationship between the former and the evolutionary perspective.

This paper aims to explore the latent structure of the literature on interorganizational network and innovation as well as to map the main themes and empirical advances in this research stream.

Using bibliometric coupling, the authors analyze the citation patterns in 67 management studies regarding innovation networks, published in ISI-journals from January 1996 to October 2012.

The authors identify the conceptual orientations that studies share. Bibliometric analysis allows us to draw an overview of how this field of research has developed, recognizing in essence six main clustered research themes: networks as a framework that sustains firm innovativeness in specific contexts; network dimensions and knowledge processes; networks as a means to access and share resources/knowledge; the interplay between firm and network characteristics and its effects on innovative processes; empirical research on networks in highly dynamic industries; and the influence of industry knowledge domain’s peculiarities on network dimensions and characteristics.

By providing a comprehensive survey of current trends in the literature on interorganizational network and innovation, the authors eventually identify the major gaps in our knowledge and help refocusing the current research agenda in this increasingly relevant research stream.

The systematic introduction to the field of innovation networks is of notable interest to scholars and practitioners, who have (or desire to have) some awareness in the topic. Here, practitioners may find their compass to acquire some knowledge on innovation networks and orient their choices.

First, the spatially organized picture of the intellectual structure of the literature the authors offer is the initial thought-out comprehensive introduction to the field of on interorganizational network and innovation. Second, by developing a thorough bibliometric analysis of the extant bulk of the innovation networks literature, the authors develop specific methodological contribution. Third, we are able to map the intellectual structure in a two-dimensional space to visualize spatial distances between intellectual themes.

The aim of this paper is twofold: on the one hand, it discusses first the notion of istituto as it has been developed by Gino Zappa within the Italian research tradition known as economia aziendale. It then proposes a critical comparison between the historical institutional approaches developed by Gino Zappa and John R. Commons. On the other hand, it speculates on the possibility of updating the notion of institution.

The study is first solidly rooted on historical institutional inquiry. Second, it draws on the constructivist epistemology put forth by Edgar Morin, Mauro Ceruti, and Hans von Foerster.

This paper allows more informed theorizing about the notion of institution since it deepens our understanding of the epistemological, theoretical, and practical “genetic variations” between the institutional perspectives of Zappa and Commons. This body of work is capable to extend its range in time and space to inform a number of present day relevant issues (i.e. the rising debates on corporate social responsibility and the firms' environmental and social reports) and to pave the way to additional research in the direction of a renewed holistic view of the concept of institution.

First, it is argued that, during the first half of the twentieth century, a somewhat unusual and unexpected convergence occurred, according to which the study of institutions coupled Italy and (part of) the US. Second, in the renewed perspective, the concept of institution becomes the active locus of mediation of multiple viewpoints; the institution turns out to be the catalizing and organizing center of knowledge developed in different disciplinary contexts.

This chapter focuses on the human side of the integration phase between the acquiring and the acquired firms. We contribute to the M&A literature by sketching an analytical framework that unveils the main features of the champion of acquisitions and his/her strategic role as the individual (or group of individuals) accountable to lead the integration process between the two firms. To discern the champion of acquisitions, we propose the coexistence of a set of distinctive features such as: (1) the capability to achieve the full commitment of the integration teams; (2) a leader's personality able to guide change in the acquiring firm's desired direction; (3) networking capabilities to facilitate or reduce the two firms’ boundaries permeability; (4) communication skills and relational capabilities necessary to facilitate the interface activity between individuals who are critical to the integration phase; and (5) the knowledge of (and the access to) the power centers necessary to obtain the indispensable legitimacy of his/her roles and actions.