Search results

Purpose – This research aims to understand inter-subsidiary innovation transfers from a subsidiary business network perspective. We examine transfer performance with particular interest in the influence of subsidiary business networks in innovation development stage. The moderating effect of knowledge inputs, that is, external and internal business partners, on transfer efficiency and effectiveness are hypothesized.

Methodology/approach – This study utilizes the data of 129 inter-subsidiary transfer projects from 19 multinational corporations. The empirical analysis specifically examines how and to what extent the development partnership – source of knowledge inputs – affects the efficiency and effectiveness of innovation transfer between subsidiaries.

Findings – The results indicate that the source of knowledge inputs influence transfer performance indirectly, but not directly. The impact is made through the dyadic relationship to the transfer performance. The findings complement the literature on innovation/knowledge transfer by incorporating innovation development into scrutiny and gauging transfer efficiency and effectiveness explicitly.

Value of paper – The empirical evidence highlights the significance of dyadic willingness to both transfer efficiency and effectiveness. Its influence to transfer performance exceeds that of dyadic similarity or previous collaboration experience. The result provides useful managerial implications to MNCs headquarters and subsidiaries. The lack of previous collaboration experience or technical similarity may pose the down side for innovation transfer between subsidiaries. But that should not put off the initiatives to conduct innovation transfers. Such problem could be effectively remedied by strong willingness between the dyad. The resources and support that subsidiaries receive could counteract the hurdle of dissimilarity and unfamiliarity.

Purpose – To explore the influence of autonomy on subsidiaries' development and transfer intensities and their interrelationship.

Methodology/approach – We develop a theoretical model that we test on a sample of 85 innovation projects developed in 63 subsidiaries in 14 countries. The data were collected by personal interviews and analysed using the Partial Least Squares technique.

Findings – Autonomy is an important driver of subsidiaries' innovation intensity although, surprisingly, we find no influence on transfer intensity. We confirm the positive relationship between subsidiary innovativeness and its role as provider of new competence to sister units within the multinational enterprise (MNE).

Research limitations/implications – In line with previous studies, we can say that autonomy is a desirable result of subsidiary evolution. We can also suggest that overall subsidiary autonomy is beneficial not just to the subsidiary but to the rest of the MNE, since the more the subsidiary innovates the more related competence will be transferred. In other words, innovation efforts at subsidiary level are critical to sustain MNEs' overall competitive advantage.

Practical implications – First, it seems that the more a subsidiary's innovativeness is fostered, the more transfers to other units will occur. Second, we have seen how autonomy is beneficial to the innovative activity of the subsidiary and that it does not seem to harm transfer intensity.

Originality/value – Following studies that point out the potential trade-off between the output of development and transfer activities by subsidiaries, our research contributes by empirically testing the relationship between the intensities of subsidiary innovation development and transfer.

Purpose – To investigate the effects of headquarters (HQ) involvement in innovation development and transfer at unit level.

Methodology/approach – We develop a theoretical model that we test on a sample of 71 innovations belonging to 52 business units located throughout Europe, Asia, and the USA. The data were collected by personal interviews and analyzed using the partial least squares (PLS) technique.

Findings – While HQ involvement in innovation development enhances the effects on the unit engaged in the development, it is detrimental to performance of the innovation transfer process. We also find higher HQ involvement in the innovation development process and stronger innovation impact on the subsidiary to be associated with higher HQ involvement in the transfer process.

Research limitations/implications – There is a significant beneficial effect of HQ involvement in the development process in terms of the increased impact of the innovation in the unit, and a harmful influence on the specific performance associated to the transfer process.

Practical implications – HQs will benefit from improved performance if they become more involved in important innovations while limiting their direct engagement in the transfer of “marginal” innovations. It might also be wise for the HQs to rethink their involvement at unit level by separating the development process from the transfer process in their decision framework.

Originality/value of the paper – This is one of the first attempts to empirically connect the processes of innovation development and transfer at unit level in MNCs and to show the implications of HQ involvement in innovation projects at subsidiary level.

This chapter considers the role of technology transfer intermediaries (TTIs) in the processes of innovation in networks involving universities, research and development centres, and business firms from an international perspective. A diversity of types of TTIs is recognised in terms of their particular interests in the operation of innovation processes and the conditions they impose in transactions involving intellectual property. It will identify the various objectives of sponsoring stakeholders as differentiating the missions and accountabilities and, in turn, determining the focus and roles of different types of TTIs and the interactions and networking between them, both formal and informal.

In discussion, the chapter will propose that the significance of systemic influence on the processes of technology transfer and innovation should be researched at two levels. At the micro-level of personal interactions, examining how systemic influences shape tacit knowledge transfer between and learning by individuals engaged in research and innovation processes. Second, at the level of national cultures, examining the ways in which the cultural context institutionalises patterns of innovation and technology transfer networking.

This chapter provides a selective survey of the theoretical and empirical literature to date on the relationship between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and measures of innovation and international technology transfer. The chapter discusses the empirical implications of theoretical work, assesses the theoretical work based on the evidence available, and identifies some gaps in the existing literature.

Drawing on examples from the more developed realms of technology transfer and other “managerial professions” (Rhoades, 1998; Rhoades & Sporn, 2002) in the academy, this paper explores possible organizational sites for housing protocols for the measurement of the social value of individual innovations in higher education (that may enter the market or and augment or precede commercial valuation), and the possible implications of those different settings for the academy (particularly in terms of motivating more faculty to engage in more innovative and entrepreneurial activities). Organizational location matters. Organizational site is related to professional perspective and to the institutional outlook that attaches to various sorts of work in the academy. Five possible sites are explored, analyzing the dimensions of such locations from the experience of other “new” activities in universities. One type of site consists of an interstitial (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004), nonacademic, support unit of managerial professionals (neither faculty nor senior level administrators), as in an Office of Technology Transfer or an Office of Institutional Research. A second type of site would be an academic unit in which measurement tasks could be performed by faculty members. A third type of site would be a hybrid model that combines elements of the first two models, as in the case of entrepreneurship units in many universities. A fourth possible type of site would be to situate such activity in an intermediating association (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004) outside of the university, which mediates between public and private sectors, and that promotes various sorts of innovation and measurement as in the case of Educause and innovative information technologies. A fifth type of site would consist of establishing university extension units in the community, to provide services more directly to constituents, as traditionally was the model for agricultural extension in land grant universities. Each of the models has its owns benefits and challenges, its implications for what sorts of professionals would be doing the work and what they would see their principal function as being, and for the impact they would have on the academic workforce and the institution's direction.

This chapter studies the transfer of performance measurement system (PMS) innovations across the three sectors of the economy: private, public, and nonprofit.

The spread of organizational innovations and learning from best practices is slow and complicated (Lillrank, 1995). Based on differences in languages used by writers and readers and differences in employee characteristics among the three sectors as well as cognitive biases, we expect the transfer of PMS innovations to be easier within sectors than across sectors. We use the frequency and timing of journal articles written about activity-based costing and the balanced scorecard as a proxy for the actual transfer of the innovations within and across economic sectors.

Our empirical results indicate that the transfer of the ideas across economic sectors does not happen as quickly as the transfer of the ideas within sectors. We provide evidence that it is the practitioners, not the academics, who lead the transfer of ideas in the open literature from one sector to another. Viewing a sector as unique limits the applicability of available solutions and applications, thereby inhibits useful change.

By focusing on differences, the exchange of ideas and techniques among the three economic sectors can be hindered.

We use experiential learning theory to develop new conceptual insights into offshore outsourcing of innovation. In particular, we show how offshore vendor firms are able to overcome liability of outsidership and eventually learn how to innovate on behalf of their onshore clients as a result of their embedment with clients across multiple teams. We theorize that the cross-border relocation of innovative activities from a client firm to an offshore vendor is only possible when teams within the vendor team have assumed a double-loop learning capability from the client allowing them to determine governing variables relating to the client’s organizational environment. Through direct on-the-job experience working with each other, international teams comprised in part from the vendor and in part from the client can undergo different learning transitions, which we classify as either relationship-oriented or task-oriented. These transitions determine the extent to which double-loop learning can be developed in offshore locations and are influenced by intra-team dynamics and the way the joint teams organize and manage themselves. Our perspective has implications for our understanding of organizational designs associated with both client and vendor multinational enterprises seeking to benefit from innovation in offshore outsourcing.

This paper relates management innovation to multinational corporations (MNCs). We argue that MNCs play two key roles in implementing management innovations. First, they can engage in management innovating by inventing and implementing new management practices. We show that while MNCs have been involved in management innovating, few of their management innovations are specifically international in nature. Second, they can be involved in the diffusion of management innovations, including the transfer of new management practices to other countries. There is more evidence for this role. We propose that international business research should attempt to incorporate management innovation into its body of research themes.