Search results

This paper aims to seek answers to the question: What are the relevant factors that allow not-for-profit innovation networks to successfully transition new technologies from proof-of-concept to commercialisation?

This question is examined using the knowledge-based view and network orchestration theory. Data are collected from 35 interviews with managers and engineers working within seven centres that comprise the High Value Manufacturing Catapult (HVMC). These centres constitute a not-for-profit innovation network where suppliers, customers and competitors collaborate to help transition new technologies across the “Valley of Death” (the gap between establishing a proof of concept and commercialisation).

Network orchestration theory suggests that a hub firm facilitates the exchange of knowledge amongst network members (knowledge mobility), to enable these members to profit from innovation (innovation appropriability). The hub firm ensures positive network growth, and also allows for the entry and exit of network members (network stability). This study of not-for-profit innovation networks suggests the role of a network orchestrator is to help ensure that intellectual property becomes a public resource that enhances the productivity of the domestic economy. The authors observed how network stability was achieved by the HVMC's seven centres employing a loosely-coupled hybrid network configuration. This configuration however ensured that new technology development teams, comprised of suppliers, customers and competitors, remained tightly-coupled to enable co-development of innovative technologies. Matching internal technical and sectoral expertise with complementary experience from network members allowed knowledge to flow across organisational boundaries and throughout the network. Matrix organisational structures and distributed decision-making authority created opportunities for knowledge integration to occur. Actively moving individuals and teams between centres also helped to diffuse knowledge to network members, while regular meetings between senior management ensured network coordination and removed resource redundancies.

The study contributes to knowledge-based theory by moving beyond existing understanding of knowledge integration in firms, and identified how knowledge is exchanged and aggregated within not-for-profit innovation networks. The findings contribute to network orchestration theory by challenging the notion that network orchestrators should enact and enforce appropriability regimes (patents, licences, copyrights) to allow members to profit from innovations. Instead, the authors find that not-for-profit innovation networks can overcome the frictions that appropriability regimes often create when exchanging knowledge during new technology development. This is achieved by pre-defining the terms of network membership/partnership and setting out clear pathways for innovation scaling, which embodies newly generated intellectual property as a public resource. The findings inform a framework that is useful for policy makers, academics and managers interested in using not-for-profit networks to transition new technologies across the Valley of Death.

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 chapter explores the extent to which an innovator is able to capture innovation rents. After examining the two main drivers of such rents, the strength of the appropriability regime and the ownership of specialized complementary assets, the chapter examines how their interaction is so critical in affecting imitation, commercialization options, and firm performance. After reviewing the underlying conceptual framework and empirical evidence, and using a perspective that cuts across both time and industries, the authors then discuss the implications of innovation profits for the resources to be devoted to the discovery of new or improved product and processes.

This paper aims to derive the conditions under which a financial services firm will want to hire a compliance services company and show how much money they should spend.

This paper uses a mathematical model to show the intuition behind many of the compliance decisions that cost financial services firms billions every year.

This paper finds that hiring compliance firms may save banks and brokerages money. However, their advice may lead to an embarrass de riches – whereby the lower compliance costs and higher profit advantages they confer may lead to more regulation. Regulators may furthermore tighten regulation – with the expectation that financial service firms will adapt somehow. This paper presents a fresh perspective on the Menon hypothesis, deriving conditions under which financial regulations help the competitiveness of an international financial centre.

The paper represents one of the first and only models of compliance spending by financial services firms.

This paper provides five potential policy responses for dealing with ever ratcheting financial regulations.

The paper hopefully launches literature on the compliance service industry – and the buy-or-do decision to engage in financial services compliance. This paper finds that efficient compliance can hurt firms, by encouraging regulation. This paper shows how firms can forestall the extra regulation that comes with easier internet and computerised monitoring.

The purpose of this paper is to devise recommendations for firms to formulate modes of value capture for their product innovations, ex ante. More specifically, the research question is: how can innovators try to maximize, ex ante, the appropriation of the rent they can derive from their innovating projects?

A theoretical framework is developed and proposed to assess modes of value capture of product innovations and two illustrations are provided to show how the framework can work in practice for innovation projects.

This paper presents a practitioner's view based on the development of an original concept of rent configuration and appropriable rent.

In terms of research limitations, the possible endogeneity of intellectual property protection and the timing of were not considered.

The framework allows a set of predictions regarding modes of value capture for product innovators.

The paper's contribution lies in the proposal of an integrative framework based on the concept of rent configuration, separating analytically three dimensions of innovation value, namely volume, profit and duration. This concept allows the authors to present a richer set of recommendations in comparison to previous frameworks, in order to avoid adopting the form of a yes/no decision tree that tends to over simplify the issues at stake. The authors also contemplate not only erosion effects, but also amplification effects on the rent, which constitutes another contribution of this paper.

In the competitive global market, firms have to keep profit from innovation activities. A firm makes profits by offering products or services at a lower cost than its competitors or by offering differentiated products at premium prices that more than compensate for the extra cost of differentiation. The IC Package and Testing technology industries were the first high technological industry to build in Taiwan. The Package and Testing industries in Taiwan adopted competitive innovation activities to become stronger. In our study, we want to know how innovation activities influence a firm operating in the IC Package and Testing industries. Our study used a questionnaire and Likert five‐point scale to survey the innovation activities, customer and feedback in innovation performance in the IC Package and Testing industry. The wafer level chip size packing technology in our study indicates the innovation activities. Because we need to compare the difference between the wafer level chip size packing technology and wire bonding technology to recognize innovation and how the innovator and customer were influenced. Our conclusions are described below: (1) When the innovator adopts innovation activities that can be maintained using experiments and knowledge, using machine and decision variables more quickly will produce success; (2) Innovators should adopt innovation activities that focus on customers that use knowledge and experimentation, training time and cost. If an innovation forces customers to spend much time and cost to learn new technology or applications, the innovation will not be adopted; (3) Innovators that create innovation performance higher than his customers must also consider the impact upon their customers. We have to remind innovator to focus on why their customers have a different level of evolution in the same innovation activities.

Profiting from service innovations can be challenging. It is not only a question of pricing and marketing the services appropriately, but also of keeping competitors from imitating them. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how service innovation differs from technology/product innovation in terms of protection, and how this shows in collaborative innovation activities.

The paper offers a literature review combining discussion related to service research and strategic management. Empirical evidence is provided in the form of a multifaceted case study illustrating some of the aspects of collaborative service innovation.

The results indicate that characteristics separating service innovations from product or process innovations influence the efficacy of protection. This, in turn, may make or break the subsequent value appropriation. Furthermore, as service innovation typically includes collaborative activities, there is another twist to protection: companies must protect knowledge that brings them competitive advantage, but on the other hand they need to foster knowledge sharing, which may be in conflict with protective measures. As a result, service innovators cannot rely solely on intellectual property right strategies, as their counterparts working with products might do, but the service element requires taking a wider look around, and utilizing means such as human resource management, lead time, and contracting.

The novelty of this paper lies in its analysis of two very recent trends: collaboration (and coopetition) in innovation, and the tendency to introduce business models that bring service innovations to the core of the offering. Augmenting prior knowledge, the paper brings forth issues that need to be acknowledged when service innovations are created, protected, and appropriated.

The aim of this paper is to present systematically a variety of benefits from innovating in response to an economic crisis.

This is a conceptual paper that draws on prior conceptual and empirical studies, especially the innovation-based view of firm performance.

Many firms have cut their innovation expenditures in response to the COVID-19 crisis. However, the financial crisis in 2008/2009 has shown that these short-term cost savings may have severely negative consequences on competitiveness. Several innovation examples from the crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic further indicate that companies may benefit from a variety of first-order innovations, which go considerably beyond product development. Consequently, researchers and executives need to consider the variety of innovation types beyond product development, and they further need to emphasize second-order innovations, which describe the dynamic transformation of innovation management.

Academics and practitioners need to put specific attention to the transformation of innovation processes at the beginning of a crisis because firms may have to redesign their innovation processes. This dynamic reconfiguration and realignment of innovation processes further is essential again if a crisis continues for a longer period, such as the crisis due to the coronavirus pandemic. For example, if a company currently does not respond to relevant trends, its competitive position will deteriorate because other companies will enter the market. If firms can afford to continue or strengthen the innovation activities, they may profit substantially after the crisis.

In a dynamic environment where underlying competition is “for the market,” this chapter examines what happens when entrants and incumbents can instead negotiate for the market. For instance, this might arise when an entrant innovator can choose to license to or be acquired by an incumbent firm (i.e., engage in cooperative commercialization). It is demonstrated that, depending upon the level of firms’ potential dynamic capabilities, there may or may not be gains to trade between incumbents and entrants in a cumulative innovation environment; that is, entrants may not be adequately compensated for losses in future innovative potential. This stands in contrast to static analyses that overwhelmingly identify positive gains to trade from such cooperation.

We present theoretical and empirical evidence challenging early studies that found unions were detrimental to workplace innovation. Under our theoretical model, unions prefer product innovation to labor-saving technological process innovation, thus making union wage bargaining regimes more conducive to product innovation than competitive pay setting. We test the theory with population-representative workplace data for Britain and Norway. We find strong support for the notion that local bargaining leads to product innovation, either alone or together with technological innovation.