The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms

Chen, Jin and Chen, Yufen and Vanhaverbeke, Wim (2008): The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms.

Abstract

It is commonly accepted nowadays that external knowledge sources are important for firms’ innovative performance. However, it is still not clear, what dimensions of firms’ external knowledge search strategy are crucial in determining their innovation success and whether these search strategies are contingent on different innovation modes. In this study, we analyze how the innovative performance is affected by the scope, depth, and orientation of firms’ external search strategies. We apply this analysis to firms using STI (science, technology and innovation) and DUI (doing, using and interacting) innovation modes. Based on a survey among firms in China, we find that greater scope and depth of openness for both innovation modes improves innovative performance indicating that open innovation is also relevant beyond science and technology based innovation. Furthermore, we find that decreasing returns in external search strategies, suggested by Laursen and Salter (2006), are not always present and are contingent on the innovation modes. Next, we find that the type of external partners (we label it “orientation of openness”) is crucial in explaining innovative performance and that firms using DUI or STI innovation modes have different sets of relevant innovation partners. This shows that the orientation of openness is an important dimension – in addition to the scope and depth of openness. As respondents are located in China, this study provides evidence that open innovation is also relevant in developing countries.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: open innovation; DUI and STI innovation modes; scope, depth and orientation of openness; innovative performance
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

References

[1] Bamford, J. D., Gomes-Casseres, B., & Robinson, M. S. (2003). Mastering alliance strategy: a comprehensive guide to design, management, and organization. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

[2] Bayona, C., Garcia-Marco, T., Huerta, E. (2001). Firms’ motivations for cooperative R&D: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Research Policy, 30: 1289-1307

[3] Belderbos, R., Carree, M. & Diederen, B. et al. (2004). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8): 1237–1263

[4] Belderbos, R., Carree, M. & Lokshin, B., (2004). Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance. Research Policy, 33(10): 1477–1492

[5] Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., Pavitt, K.L.R., 2001. Knowledge Specialization and the Boundaries of the Firm: Why Do Firms Know More Than They Make? Administrative Science Quarterly 46, 597-621.

[6] Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I. & Tsakanikas, A., (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24: 29-39.

[7] Chesbrough, H., Garman, A. R., (2009). How Open Innovation Can Help You Cope in Lean Times. Harvard Business Review, 12: 68-76

[8] Chesbrough, H., (2003), Open innovation, the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Harvard business school press.

[9] Chesbrough, H., (2006), Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the new innovation landscape, Harvard Business School Press, Harvard: MA.

[10] Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., and Frattini, F., (2009). The Open Innovation Journey: How firms dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation, doi: 10.1016/j. technovation. 2009.08.007

[11] Christiansen, J.A., (2000). Building the Innovative Organization. London: MacMillan Press.

[12] Christensen, C. M. & Bower, J. L., (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3): 197–218.

[13] Clark, K.B., (1989). Project scope and project performance: the effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management Science, 35, 1247–1263.

[14] Clark, K.B., Fujimoto, T., 1991. Product development performance: strategy, organization, management in the world auto industry. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

[15] Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A., (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152.

[16] Das, T.K., and Teng, B.-S., (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31–60.

[17] Dundon, E., (2002). The Seeds of Innovation: Cultivating the Synergy That Fosters New Ideas. AMACOM.

[18] Faems, D. Van Looy, B. and Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22: 238–250.

[19] Filiou D., (2005), Exploration and Exploitation in Inter-organisational Learning: Motives for Cooperations Being Self-destructive for Some and Vehicles for Growth for Others, some Evidence from the Biotechnology Sector in the UK between 1991 and 2001, Paper to be presented at the DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark.

[20] Gales, L., Mansour-Cole, D., (1995). User Involvement in Innovation Projects: Toward an Information Processing Model, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 12, 77-109.

[21] Gans, J.S., and Stern, S., (2003), The product market and the market for ‘ideas’: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs, Research Policy 32, 333-350.

[22] Gassmann, O., (2006). Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36(3): 223-228.

[23] George, G., Zahra, S.A., & Wood, D.R., (2002), The effects of business-university alliance on innovate output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 577-609.

[24] Gopalakrishnan, S., Bierly, P. & Kessler, E.H. (1999). A re-examination of product and process innovations using a knowledge-based view. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 10(1): 147-166

[25] Hagedoorn, J., Link, A.N., and Vonortas, N.S., (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 567–586.

[26] Harabi, N., (1995). Channels of R&D Spillovers: an Empirical Investigation. Institute of Economics at the University of Zurich, Working paper no. 37

[27] Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., and Lundvall, B-Å (2007), Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation, Research Policy, 36(5), 680-693

[28] Klevorick, A.K., Levin, R.C., Nelson, R.R., & Winter, S.G., (1995). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24(2): 185–205.

[29] Koput, K.W., (1997). A Chaotic Model of Innovative Search: Some Answers, Many Question, Organization Science, 8(5), 528-542.

[30] Laursen, K., Salter, A., (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovative performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 2006, 27(2): 131-150.

[31] Laursen, K., Salter, A., (2005). The Paradox of Openness: Appropriability and the Use of External Sources of Knowledge for Innovation. DRUID working paper.

[32] Lettl, C., Herstatt, C. & Gemuenden, H.G., (2006). Users’ contributions to radical innovation: evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. R&D Management, 36(3): 251-272.

[33] Miotti, L. & Sachwald, F., (2003). Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32(8): 1481–1499

[34] Mitchell, W., Singh, K., (1992). Incumbents’ use of pre-entry alliances before expansion into new technical sub-fields of an industry. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 18.

[35] Nieto, M., Quevedo, P., (2005). Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers, and innovative effort, Technovation, 25: 1141-1157.

[36] Nishigushi, T., (1994). Strategic Industrial Sourcing: The Japanese Advantage. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[37] Nonaka, I., (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science, 5: 14–37.

[38] Ocasio, W., (1997), Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(Summer Special Issue): 187-206.

[39] Pavitt, K., (1984), Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory, Research Policy, 13: 343-373.

[40] Pisano, G., (1990). The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, (Special Issue), 35, 153-176.

[41] Rothaermel, F.T. (2001). Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 687–699.

[42] Rothaermel, F.T. and Deeds, D.L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3): 201–221.

[43] Shan, W., Walker, G., Kogut, B., (1994). Research notes and communications. Interfirm co-operation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 387–394.

[44] Shapiro, S.M., (2002). 24/7 Innovation: A Blueprint for Surviving and Thriving in an Age of Change, McGraw-Hill Companies.

[45] Simonin, B.L., (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2): 595-623.

[46] Stevens, J. 1992. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[47] Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.

[48] Teresko, J., (2004). Open Innovation? Rewards and Challenges. www.industryweek.com.

[49] Tether, B., 2002. Who co-operates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31, 947-967.

[50] Todtling, F., Lehner, P., and Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation, 29, 59–71.

[51] Torodova, G. and Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization, Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774–786.

[52] Tucker, R.B., (2002). Driving Growth Through Innovation, Berrett-Koehler publishing.

[53] Ulrich, D., Kerr, S., Ashkenas, R., (2002). The GE Work-Out, McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.

[54] Veugelers, R., (1997). Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing [J]. Research Policy, 26(3): 303–315

[55] von Hippel, E., (1988). The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.

[56] Williamson, O.E., (1981). The economics of organization: The Transaction Cost Approach, American Journal of Sociology, 87(3) 548-577.

[57] Zahra, S.A. and G. George, 2002, Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27: 185-203.