Search results

This paper aims to examine the challenges experienced by Russian research and development (R&D) organisations in international technology collaboration in the global innovation arena.

A total of 33 Russian R&D organisations were selected from a sample of 138 potential participating organisations from the Central, Nord‐Western and Volga Federal Districts of Russia to take part in a qualitative interview study. Organisations were selected based on their responses to a questionnaire which measured the extent and nature of their experience in international technology collaborations. Participants were interviewed about their experiences of engaging in international technology collaboration under two different modes of collaboration: short term customer‐supplier relationships vs longer‐term strategic alliances. The semi‐structured interviews focused on 15 different issues which had been derived from the previously published literature on international technology collaboration and a thematic analysis was conducted on the resultant data.

The analysis indicates which of the issues reported as problematic in the literature were pertinent to the Russian organisations in the sample under each mode of collaboration. The findings also provide some evidence that Russian R&D organisations have made progress in the transition from the command to the market economy and are adjusting to the new environment, albeit gradually in some cases.

The paper presents interpretive, qualitative findings, which were analysed from a Russian perspective in three out of seven Federal Districts of Russia. The research sample does not include non‐Russian counterparts and the analysis is restricted to those variables which have previously been identified as exerting an influence over international technology collaborations.

The study reveals a broad range of insights into the types of issues which warrant close managerial attention from both Russian managers and their international partners in engaging in international technology collaborations with contemporary Russian R&D organisations.

The research suggests that different sets of challenges emerge for organisations engaged in different modes of international collaboration and provides insight into the unique context of Russia, challenging some of the previously published analyses of the influence of Russian business and managerial practices on the innovativeness of contemporary Russian organisations.

The current research considers the possibility that when firms are faced with a challenging supply chain task or opportunity for supply chain operational improvement, they choose varying degrees of technology and/or collaboration as the primary vehicle(s) with which to forge a solution. This choice is suggested herein to depend largely on technological readiness, i.e. the extent to which the firm embraces available technological solutions. Furthermore, the learning capability of the firm moderates the inverse relationship between interfirm collaboration and technological readiness, such that firms having strong organizational learning capabilities are less likely to choose a collaboration‐intensive solution than those with weak learning capabilities. This paper aims to address these issues.

A sample of retail supply chain managers drawn from the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals membership database is surveyed related to their firms' levels of interfirm collaboration, organizational learning capabilities, and technological readiness. Two multiple moderated regression variants are used to test the hypotheses.

Results of this research support the hypothesized logic, and implications for practice are presented in light of a revealed inverse relationship between technological readiness and interfirm collaboration that is exacerbated when the firm has a strong learning orientation.

This paper is among the first known to examine potential internal/external tradeoffs between collaboration and technology as problem‐solving vehicles. Both managers and researchers should find it interesting that collaboration is neither wholly desirable nor necessary (and therefore the associated risks mitigated) in technologically ready and/or high learning capability environments.

A common argument is that organizations should adopt new organizational practices, in order to respond to the hyper‐competitive business environment. The assumption underlying this argument is that such adoption generally entails the replacement of traditional practices. We suggest, instead, that managers are more likely to be managing simultaneously both new and old organizational practices. We explore our position through an investigation of the use of remote collaboration technologies in film production. In our study of US, UK and Australian film production houses we identify seven organizational dualities which characterize remote collaborations: creative work/routines, freedom/constraint, trust/control, artistic excellence/cost effectiveness, collaboration/competition, emotional/rational and closeness/remoteness. One side of each relationship represents organizational practices commonly associated with traditional forms of organizing, while the other represents those practices commonly associated with new forms of organizing. The coexistence of these dualities suggests that new organizational forms are not replacing traditional forms but rather co‐exist with, and become incorporated into, remolded traditional forms.

This study aims to examine how a collaboration technology is used by three organizational groups. The main focus is on the interplay between the users’ perceptions (of the technology and of the knowledge shared) and the material properties of the collaboration technology.

Two theoretical frameworks (social representations and sociomaterial practice perspective) examine collaboration technology use to better understand the underlying dynamics. The research is conducted as a case study in a US company where a collaboration technology was being implemented.

The findings reveal a process model showing how social dynamics and users’ perceptions of what the collaboration technology can do and cannot do to share the users’ knowledge influence the users’ behaviour. Based on these perceptions, users will twist or amend their interpretation of the reality (the material properties of the technology) to justify their use of the collaboration technology.

This research is conducted as a single case study. However, the significant amount of time spent at the research site allowed for a very rich description of the events and processes involved.

This study offers guidelines on what influences use and adoption of collaboration technologies. It highlights the importance of providing more than just training, as social dynamics and users’ perceptions continuously influence users’ behaviour.

By combining two complementary theoretical frameworks, this study provides a novel and more in-depth explanation of collaboration technology use (or lack thereof).

The literature has shown great interest in open innovation (OI), and also discussed its degree of openness based on, for example, the number of parties involved. Less is known, however, about what makes OI processes work. The purpose of this paper is to describe and discuss the importance of trust in OI, and the paper specifically focusses on a start-up company’s OI processes with collaboration parties. The paper points out how a lack of trust antecedents may disable such OI processes.

The empirical part of the paper consists of a case study on a medicine technology start-up. Interviews and analyses of secondary sources made up the main data capturing methods. Each collaboration between the start-up and another party is analysed through three trust antecedents: contractual, competence based, and goodwill.

The paper shows how either party may have chosen to discontinue the collaboration, based on the lack of competence or goodwill antecedents to trust. Specifically, the case indicates how the start-up discontinues the collaboration based on a perceived lack of goodwill, while the collaboration party bases its decision on competence deficits by the start-up.

The paper contributes to previous research through describing OI related to start-ups, and introducing trust antecedents as prerequisites for OI. To the literature on trust, trust mutuality makes a research contribution.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically test the joint impact of trust, technology diffusion and organisational capacity on collaboration and investigate the effect of the interaction among them on business performance.

A conceptual model is formulated to achieve the study’s purpose. The research employs quantitative methodology to test the validity of the model. Pilot interviews were used to select applicable attribute for each of the model’s constructs and to revise the survey questionnaire. The survey is addressed to CEOs and senior managers of 500 electrical product manufacturers in Wenzhou province, China. The questionnaire covers 20 attributes of the model’s constructs, which are measured on a seven-point scale. A structured equation modelling software known as AMOS is used to analyse data.

Results indicate that trust is an antecedent factor for successful collaboration, but not as a factor directly affecting business performance. However, the research shows that collaboration plays a full mediator between trust and business performance. The empirical evidence from this research implied that technology diffusion do not translate properly into collaboration and the organisations do not give adequate attention to the process performance in making collaboration with partners. In addition, the electrical Chinese organisations do not consider that the commitments of their partners exceed the expectations.

This research limits investigation in China only and considers one type of industry, that is, the manufacturers of small products.

The conceptual model can be used as an audit tool for evaluating the effect of collaboration on business performance. Thus, managers could recognise weak attributes and plan for improvement.

This study provides new measurement instrument for evaluating the joint impact of collaboration, technology diffusion, trust and organisational capacity on business performance.

Collaboration and acquisition have traditionally been observed as two alternative strategies when accessing external technologies. However, real option scholars have recently argued that firms can also engage in transitional technology sourcing trajectories where collaboration and acquisition are used as complementary strategies. While these real option scholars have identified factors that influence when partners are likely to shift from collaboration to acquisition, they remain silent on how such a transition can be effectively managed. Based on a multiple case study of four transitional technology sourcing trajectories between one new entrepreneurial and one established firm, this study therefore explores how the pre-acquisition collaboration stage and the post-acquisition integration are related to each other. Findings suggest that entrepreneurial companies may use the pre-acquisition collaboration stage as a period to evaluate the goodwill of the established partner. In addition, we point to the presence of pre-acquisition integration efforts and the extent of strategic convergence during the pre-acquisition collaboration stage as factors that substantially influence the success of the post-acquisition integration process in transitional governance trajectories.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of collaboration mode (face‐to‐face versus non‐collocated using collaborative technology) on team‐based problem solving behaviors associated with team learning, team reflexivity (i.e. reflectiveness) and team mental model development.

The study used a single factor (collaboration mode) between subjects randomized experimental design. The experimental manipulations of collaboration mode were face‐to‐face versus technology‐mediated collaboration. Observer ratings of problem solving behaviors were used to generate data analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance.

Multivariate analysis of variance results indicated that face‐to‐face collaboration is superior to technology‐mediated collaboration in facilitating team level cognitive functions such as team learning, team reflexivity, and shared mental model development.

To better manage the psychological/cognitive aspects of teamwork, managers must detect and accurately interpret the behavioral indicators that evidence the extent of team learning, reflexivity and shared mental model construction of task requirements and execution.

This paper represents one of the first to investigate the impact of technology‐mediated collaboration on team cognition and to conceptualize team cognition as a set of mental processes and intra‐team communication exchanges that facilitate team learning, reflection, and shared understanding.

The purpose of this paper is to provide theoretical insight and practical guidance on how both process firms and equipment manufacturers can address the challenges posed by collaboration during the operational stage of the process technology/equipment life cycle.

Motives and driving forces for entering collaborative projects far from always converge, and while some projects require deep and long‐lasting relationships, others call for pure transactions and arms‐length relationships. The questions of why, when and how collaboration should take place and be organised and managed are addressed and discussed in the light of the literature on technology diffusion and technology transfer, and supplemented by ideas from industry professionals.

A tentative list of potential pros and cons has been compiled to serve as an embryo for further creation of a more complete set of expected outcomes with a view to developing a firm benchmarking instrument for establishing new collaborative relationships. Subsequently, a conceptual model of the full life‐cycle of process technology/equipment is developed to create a platform for determining collaboration intensity and success factors during different phases. Finally, a matrix with the dimensions “type of capability” and “expected performance improvements” is introduced as a tool for selection of different forms of collaboration.

The main limitation is that so far this is only a theoretical framework, but as such it will serve as a new platform and a guide for further empirical studies of this important yet under‐researched area.

This area of technology and innovation management research for the process industries has not been addressed before in depth. The new framework can already be deployed by industry professionals in their efforts to improve inter‐company collaboration and technology transfer, but also as a means of avoiding unintended technology diffusion.

Open innovation is important for technology firms as they can use freely available resources to source creative and innovative ideas. Despite the usefulness of open innovation for technological advancements, few studies have focused on the role of cybercrime in affecting an organizations strategic direction. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of open innovation on cybercrime in technology firms.

Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted on technology firms to understand the role of open innovation in terms of technology scouting, horizontal collaboration and vertical collaboration on cybercrime activity.

The study found that there is a dilemma most technology firm’s face in having an open innovation strategy and how to manage cybercrime. This means that a coopetition strategy is utilized that helps to not only balance the need to have open innovation but also protect intellectual property.

The study has implications for emerging technology innovations that not only need to have cyber security but also harness the use of Big Data.

Managers of technology firms need to encourage open innovation as a strategy but manage the cybercrime that comes from sharing too much information in an online context.

This paper is one of the first to link open innovation strategy to cybercrime activity in technology firms. Thus, it contributes to the literature on open innovation and cyber theft and security.