Search results

How does the internationalization of R&D influence the development of dynamic capabilities? Based on the observation that Chinese high‐tech companies internationalize parts of their R&D activities to Western countries before they have established sound domestic R&D capabilities and in opposition to other held beliefs about internationalization drivers this paper aims to investigate the role of global R&D organizational structure in the development of dynamic capabilities.

This research is based on a qualitative case study using data of one Chinese high‐tech firm to develop testable propositions.

The research develops three main propositions: the loss of competitive advantage and relevant capabilities in the domestic market is more important to the internationalization of R&D than an attempt to enter new international markets; in joint development teams with a partner company, a functional R&D team sub‐structure using heavyweight or autonomous teams leads to a higher degree of knowledge exchange in the partner sub‐project organization; R&D projects conducted in organizations with higher formal control lead to a higher degree of learning than R&D projects conducted when control is shared with a partner; R&D projects which rely extensively on external knowledge (with no formal control) produce better outcomes for learning than projects conducted under joint control; R&D projects which rely extensively on external knowledge (with no formal control) produce better outcomes for learning than projects conducted in full control.

As the research is based on data of one single case study there are several inherent limitations regarding validity and reliability which need to be covered by future research.

This paper posits that R&D internationalization has a positive influence on the development of dynamic capabilities.

Through examining the development of the video compact disc player industry in China, this article aims to explore the main characteristics of world‐first innovation and identify four success factors for innovation followers to launch world‐first products in catching‐up countries.

This article takes the form of a case study

The main characteristics of world‐first innovation in catching‐up countries include: from the demand side, innovation is mainly pulled by the local market, rather than technology‐push; from the supply side, innovation cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world – suppliers of key technologies in advanced countries play an important role; inter‐firm alliances are an increasingly important way to generate world‐first innovation; and downstream integration capabilities are required for followers to mix pieces of technologies together at competitive pricing. The success of followers from catching‐up countries to launch world‐first products hinges on the four critical factors: strengths of complementary assets; figuring out ways to meet local market demand without relying on large R&D spending; emphasizing untapped innovation opportunities by multinationals; and positioning themselves on the proper points of the globally coordinated network for innovation.

This article identifies the main characteristics of world‐first innovation and points out four success factors for innovation followers to launch world‐first products, which could be significant to managers in catching‐up countries. Findings of this paper are more relevant to large catching‐up countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia where a large domestic market could serve as important launch markets for the world‐first innovation.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

This introduction aims to set the scene for this special issue on innovation in Chinese firms.

There is no research design and methodology for data collection and analysis as such.

This introduction sets the special issue in the context of the European Academy of Management (EURAM) track with the same theme. It also provides an outline for the special issue highlighting the main topics in terms of technology and innovation management in large and small firms in China; as well as lessons drawn from academic institutions involved in provision of management education both at research and taught – MBA‐level degree programs.

This special issue is limited in the number of contributions that they are submitted to the EURAM Conference and track on “innovation in Chinese firms” in 2008 and 2009. The research implications for firm strategy and government policy draw on limited empirical evidence mainly from case studies and interviews with selected experts.

The originality of this special issue is that it brings together empirical findings from a broad range of large state owned companies, small and medium enterprises, and Chinese and foreign universities and business schools interested in management education in China.

The center for innovation model is a growing and prominent phenomenon across corporate, government, nonprofit, and university contexts. Based on the name, one would infer an aim is to serve as a mechanism that catalyzes innovation. A further aim would be to serve as exemplars of technology development, knowledge development, and knowledge dissemination in the course of delivering a given mission. To date, little work has examined the center for innovation phenomenon and so there is a need to investigate these inferences and provide an understanding for the basis and rationale for why organizations across various contexts are pursuing centers for innovation. Examining mission statements followed by an electronic survey of 66 centers for innovation, we characterize the practices, rationales, success factors, challenges, and other descriptors of these centers in an effort to understand their operating characteristics. Results suggest four archetypes for the center for innovation model based on constituency. Results also show similarities across success factors and challenges, with sustainable funding clearly a common challenge.