Search results

How beneficial is interorganizational learning for research and development (R&D) consortium performance, and what factors drive the learning effectiveness? To answer these underexplored topics, this study aims to investigate the relationship between interorganizational learning and consortium performance and the moderating impact of social capital embedded in the consortia on the relationship.

Based on the literature review conducted, interorganizational learning is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct represented by exploitative and exploratory learning at the consortium level. R&D consortium performance is operationalized as a combination of technological and business performance, corresponding, respectively, to its collective outputs and individual outcomes. This study hypothesizes focusing on technological performance while analyzing business performance for the robustness check.

The hypotheses are tested in an original sample of 218 R&D consortium projects in which Korean ventures participated as focal partners. The results show that both exploitative and exploratory learnings are positively related to R&D consortium performance, and social capital accrued in the consortia leverages the advantages of exploratory learning for technological performance and exploitative learning for business performance.

This study adds new evidence to the literature, suggesting the performing-by-partnering mechanism of R&D consortia is contingent on the social capital that institutionalizes the common learning platform in which the partners interoperate. In practical respects, the combination of interorganizational learning and social capital deserves to be regarded as strategic elements for the value-cocreating consortia, requiring the true exchange of knowledge across partners.

R&D consortia as a new R&D cooperative form flourished in Japan, the USA, and Europe and can be regarded as a major tool for promoting industrial technological innovation and enhancing industry competitiveness. Inspired by R&D consortia in advanced countries, Taiwan and the Chinese mainland seek to develop the cooperative R&D mechanism in their own distinctive contexts. The purpose of this paper is to identify the patterns of their formation and development and to reveal the dynamics of R&D consortia (termed “public technological platforms” – PTPs) in the Chinese mainland) to give some implications for other developing countries that try to model the cooperative R&D policy for their own technology catch‐up programmes.

The paper provides an explanatory framework for analyzing how Taiwan and the Chinese mainland seek to develop R&D consortia based on comparative analysis and case study.

R&D consortia in Taiwan and PTPs in the Chinese mainland have unique structural characteristics with their common catch‐up goals and have been developing in different ways reflecting the relationships and interaction between academia, industry, and government. The effectiveness of R&D consortia is largely determined by the institutional arrangements including goal setting, organizational arrangements, and government involvement.

Further analysis of R&D consortia and PTPs would be required to form empirical studies based on the collection of more extensive data.

The key to R&D consortia/PTPs' success is how to devise institutional arrangements to ensure effective cooperation between academia, industry, and government and to implement certain technology strategies effectively.

This research contributes by identifying the differences in development of Taiwan R&D consortia and Chinese mainland PTPs and by revealing their evolutionary process.

This paper aims to focus on formation motivations and processes of R&D consortia to appreciate their differential innovative and learning capabilities.

The paper presents its argument in two separate steps. First, a two‐by‐two framework, comprising four consortium types, is developed based on two formation motivations (i.e. risk sharing and networking) and two formation processes (i.e. emergent and engineered). Four case vignettes are used to demonstrate the practical relevance of the two‐by‐two consortium typology framework. Second, the innovative and learning capabilities of each of these consortia are explored and eight propositions are advanced.

The paper introduces four types of consortia: community builders, gamblers, visible hands, and opportunists. It is argued that visible hands generate greater innovation than community builders and opportunists, and community builders and opportunists generate greater innovation than gamblers. It is also argued that government involvement moderates the relationship between consortia type and innovative capabilities in an inverted U shape. Lastly, relative appropriateness of frequency, outcome, and trait imitations to facilitate organization‐level learning among consortium members is explored.

The main contribution of this paper lies in its two‐by‐two typology of consortium formation contextual conditions. Instead of focusing on evolutionary cycles and performance issues of consortia, this paper draws research attention to contextual conditions surrounding consortia formation. Consortium formation contextual conditions are critically important because they predetermine the life cycle and performance trajectory of consortia. This paper also links innovation and learning dynamics in consortia.

This paper addresses the issue of management control (MC) of collaborative innovation. It attempts to fill this gap in MC literature by considering both contingency and internal consistency perspectives influencing the MC setting, especially in the context of R&D alliances. Opening the boundaries of R&D has implications for the design of MC. It involves particular challenges and raises specific tensions of competing demands between control and innovation.

Based on a quantitative survey of sponsored European consortia and using the structural equation modeling method, we design an interfirm MC model to support collaborative innovation.

Our results show that the innovation ecosystem plays a critical role as an institutional element shaping the MC design. We also infer based on our findings that the package approach is more suitable than the system one to set up control practices within a collaborative innovation context. Thus, the package allows several configurations of MC in an ongoing process that, in turn, leads to deal with organizational tensions and conflicting pressures in a dynamic way. Accordingly, the package's effectiveness seems to be related to its “fit” with the alliance context rather than its “internal consistency”.

This study advances MC literature by combining two theoretical perspectives to address interfirm MC, especially in the field of innovation that raises specific challenges. The findings lead also to build a bridge with a new perspective, i.e. evolutionary perspective, as the package suggests an ongoing process of resolving dynamic tensions between control requirements and innovation needs.

The study suggests a model of MC package that provides managers with a range of viable configurations and alternatives to support collaborative innovation, control activities, adapt to changes, resolve tensions and drive performance.

Instead of prior studies, the study relies upon both contingency and internal consistency perspectives to examine the MC design and structuring mode. In addition, the empirical part of this research deals with the case of European sponsored R&D consortia as a form of collaborative innovation. Unlike traditional R&D alliances, management control within sponsored consortia seems to be more complex to address as the consortium is multilateral, the grants are public and the goals may diverge given the broad variety of organizations the consortium involves.

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of government support policies and research and development (R&D) activities on product innovation under market uncertainty.

This study applies logistic regression analysis to a sample of 4,000 South Korean manufacturing firms in order to investigate the impact of government policies and R&D activities of the firm on firm innovation performance, with particular interest in the moderating role of the firm's perceived market uncertainty (PMU).

Policies supporting industry/university/institute/local collaboration are found to have greater benefit under high PMU. Surprisingly, support for a consortium among different-sized firms has a negative effect on product innovation, although this negative effect disappears under high PMU. Both support for the protection of intellectual property (IP) and support for the resolution of manpower shortages have strong positive effects on the propensity to innovate products, but in both cases the moderating effects of uncertainty are negative. Finally, all types of R&D activities have positive effects on the propensity to innovate, more so for new product innovation than for improved product innovation.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to examine analytically the moderating effect of PMU in the effectiveness of government policies promoting innovation in the manufacturing sector. The study is potentially useful both for policymakers in deciding which policies to implement under prevailing market conditions; and for entrepreneurs choosing between different forms of government support, particularly given the abnormal levels of market uncertainty prevailing in the Covid-19 era.

The authors contribute to the literature on leadership by investigating how characteristics of principal investigators (PIs) affect innovation performance, and how collaborative and non-collaborative projects moderate this relationship within the context of inter-organisational research projects.

The authors analysed panel data from the National Science and Technology Information Service on 171 research projects within a biomedical and regenerative medicines programme overseen by the Korea Health Industry Development Institute. The authors used a hierarchical regression model, based on the ordinary least squares method, to examine the relationship between PI characteristics and performance, considering both quantity and quality.

The results show that the characteristics of PIs have diverse effects on the quantity and quality of innovation performance. Gender diversity within PIs negatively affects the quality of innovation performance, while the capacity of PIs positively influences it. Moreover, the degree of PI’s engagement is positively associated with the quantity of innovation performance but does not have a significant relationship with the quality of performance. In terms of moderating effects, collaborative projects with multiple leaders seem less reliant on PI capacity than non-collaborative projects led by a single leader, in terms of innovation performance.

The results contribute significantly to the literature on innovation management by examining the role of leadership in collaborative environments to enhance innovation performance, addressing the need for empirical evidence in this area. Analyses of PI characteristics in government R&D management can lead to improved team performance, more efficient processes and effective resource allocation, ultimately fostering innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between prior experience of organisations and their “co‐opetitive” behaviours in forming research networks when a R&D programme is launched in order to fund future research projects.

Drawing on both resource‐based writings and social embeddedness studies, the paper posits that two types of co‐opetition – namely the intra‐network and inter‐network co‐opetition – should be clearly distinguished in order to understand co‐opetitive behaviours of organisations. These two types of co‐opetition arise as a consequence of the different levels of firms' prior experience in forming successful co‐opetitive networks with their competitors.

A reverse U‐shape trade‐off between the two types of co‐opetition is hypothesised: the maximum level of intra‐network co‐opetition and the lowest of inter‐network co‐opetition are expected for low and highlevels of prior experience; the minimum level of intra‐network co‐opetition and the highest of inter‐network co‐opetition are expected for moderate levels of prior experience.

This paper sheds light on how co‐opetitive relationships emerge in R&D networks and under which circumstances competition prevails on cooperation.

The purpose of this paper is to present the Strategic Research Consortium Centre for Technological Innovation in Building and Civil Engineering (A-CITEEC) and its scientific strategy for the promotion of research and higher education in building and civil engineering.

By means of an approach based on the comparison of strategic actions with other research consortia, a scientific programme is designed following innovative research areas.

The A-CITEEC is a supra-group structure that strengthens scientific research and provides new opportunities for innovation and technology transfer at the national and international level.

The main objective of the A-CITEEC is to improve and intensify research and knowledge transfer in the fields of engineering and sustainable construction. As a direct consequence, this consortium of research groups is promoting community well-being, economic development and optimization of ecosystem services.

The A-CITEEC enhances collaborations in the national and international university community to achieve their objectives. Other remarkable activities encouraged by the consortium are the organization of scientific events, such as visits to the research centre, the promotion of the research transfer to companies and encouraging the presence of women researchers.

The achievement of the objectives and research lines by the A-CITEEC members will lead to satisfying the sustainable development goals (SDGs), priorities of the RIS3 Strategy, Spanish Strategy for Science and Technology and Innovation 2013–2020 and with the European Strategy H2020.

The scientific activities shown in this case study are intended to ensure the continuity of the group consortium, which is unique at the regional level in the field of building and civil engineering.

The paper contributes to the discussion on valuation in organization studies and strategic management literature. The nascent literature on valuation practices has examined established markets where producers and consumers are known and rivalry in the market is a given. Furthermore, previous research has operated with a narrow meaning of value as either a financial profit or a subjective consumer preference. Such a narrow view on value is problematic and insufficient for studying the interlacing of innovation and value creation in emerging technoscientific business domains.

The authors present an empirical study about value creation in an emerging technoscience business domain formed around personalized medicine and digital health data.

The results of this analysis show that in a technoscientific domain, valuation of innovations is multiple and malleable, entails pursuing attractiveness in collaboration and partnerships and is performative, and due to emphatic future orientation, values are indefinite and promissory.

As research implications, this study shows that valuation practices in an emerging technoscience business domain focus on defining the potential economic value in the future and attracting partners as probable future beneficiaries. Commercial value upon innovation in an embryonic business milieu is created and situated in valuation practices that constitute the prospective market, the prevalent economic discourse, and rationale. This is in contrast to an established market, where valuation practices are determined at the intersection of customer preferences and competitive arenas where suppliers, producers, service providers and new entrants to the market present value propositions.

The study findings extend discussion on valuation from established business domains to emerging technoscience business domains which are in a “pre-competition” phase where suppliers, customers, producers and their collaborative and competitive relations are not yet established.

As managerial implications, this study provides insights into health innovation stakeholders, including stakeholders in the public, private and academic sectors, about the ecosystem dynamics in a technoscientific innovation. Such insight is useful in strategic decision-making about ecosystem strategy and ecosystem business model for value proposition, value creation and value capture in an emerging innovation domain characterized by collaborative and competitive relations among stakeholders. To business managers, the findings of this study about valuation practices are useful in strategic decision-making about ecosystem strategy and ecosystem business model for value proposition, value creation and value capture in an emerging innovation domain characterized by collaborative and competitive relations among stakeholders. To policy makers, this study provides an in-depth analysis of an overall business ecosystem in an emerging technoscience business that can be propelled to increase the financial investments in the field. As a policy implication, this study provides insights into the various dimensions of valuation in technoscience business to policy makers, who make governance decisions to guide and control the development of medical innovation using digital health data.

This study's results expand previous theorizing on valuation by showing that in technoscientific innovation all types of value created – scientific, clinical, social or economic – are predominantly promissory. This study complements the nascent theorizing on value creation and valuation practices of technoscientific innovation.

The aim is to investigate and group the strategic motives that firms engage in cooperative R&D by exploring a new method.

Four theories are adopted to explain the motives and they are cited as the base to categorize the motives into four factors. A survey questionnaire of participants in the aluminum industry is used to examine the empirical prevalence and clustering of these different categories of strategic motives. Factor analysis is used to test this measurement modeling.

The results of the confirmatory factor analysis support this grouping of strategic motives as reliable and valid method. Research limitations/implications – The techniques used in this study when applied to group other motives or other similar issues could produce useful information in business and management research. Moreover, the theories employed in this research can help in hypothesis development and the relationship test between the factors and the formation of R&D alliances.

The incentives such as strategic motives and the formation of R&D alliances studied in this paper can be used to investigate how they might be related to the aluminum or any other industry characteristics.

This paper contributes to the modeling of measurement model in management by exploring a new method.