Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:30:37.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The complementarities and contextualities of corporate R&D strategies: An empirical analysis of Korean manufacturing industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Donghyuk Choi ,
Sungki Lee  and
Yeonbae Kim
Donghyuk Choi
Affiliation:
Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, Seoul, South Korea
Sungki Lee
Affiliation:
Korea Institute of Intellectual Property, Seoul, South Korea
Yeonbae Kim
Affiliation:
Technology Management, Economics and Policy Program, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

By reflecting upon recent theoretical developments in open innovation studies, we shed new light on diverse potential sources of complementarities between corporate R&D activities as well as on contextual factors that could affect the complementarities. In particular, to break from the previous discussions confined to absorptive capacity, we considered the diverse knowledge management processes of knowledge exploration, retention, and exploitation. Then we empirically examined the existence of complementarities between corporate R&D strategies and uncovered the contextual factors. Our empirical results suggest the possible existence of a complementary relationship between in-house and joint R&D. We also discovered the firm-specific contextual variables, such as a firm's cumulative patent stocks and scientific information inflows from public research institutes and universities, that drive the decision to combine in-house and joint R&D. Our theoretical discussions on firms' diverse knowledge management processes allow more enriched understanding on these empirical findings.

Keywords

complementaritycontextualityin-house R&Djoint R&Dcommissioned R&D
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , May 2012 , pp. 311 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582.Google Scholar
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1994). Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability, and external linkages in biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 24(1), 91–114.Google Scholar
Bojica, A. M., Fuentes Fuentes, M. M., & Gómez-Gras, J. M. (2011). Radical and incremental entrepreneurial orientation: The effect of knowledge acquisition. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(3), 326–343.Google Scholar
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.Google Scholar
Catozzella, A., & Vivarelli, M. (2007). The catalysing role of in-house R&D in fostering the complementarity of innovative inputs (IZA Discussion Paper No. 3126). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: Two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.Google Scholar
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.Google Scholar
Dowd, B., Feldman, R., Cassou, S., & Finch, M. (1991). Health plan choice and the utilization of health care services. Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(1), 85–93.Google Scholar
Ennen, E., & Richter, A. (2010). The whole is more than the sum of its parts – or is it? A review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of Management, 36(1), 207–233.Google Scholar
Ernst, H., Lichtenthaler, U., & Vogt, C. (2011). The impact of accumulating and reactivating technological experience on R&D alliance performance. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1194–1216.Google Scholar
Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribo, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38(1), 96–105.Google Scholar
Fey, C. F., & Birkinshaw, J. (2005). External sources of knowledge, governance mode, and R&D performance. Journal of Management, 31(4), 597–621.Google Scholar
Garud, R., & Nayyar, P. R. (1994). Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5), 365–385.Google Scholar
Ghemawat, P. (1991). Market incumbency and technological inertia. Marketing Science, 10(2), 161–171.Google Scholar
Gresov, C., Haveman, H. A., & Oliva, T. A. (1993). Organizational design, inertia and the dynamics of competitive response. Organization Science, 4(2), 181–208.Google Scholar
Grimpe, C., & Kaiser, U. (2010). Balancing internal and external knowledge acquisition: The gains and pains from R&D outsourcing. Journal of Management Studies, 47(8), 1483–1509.Google Scholar
Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.Google Scholar
Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.Google Scholar
Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.Google Scholar
Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–19Google Scholar
Kim, J. K., & Lee, C. H. (2002). Insolvency in the corporate sector and financial crisis in Korea. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 7(2), 267–281.Google Scholar
Kodde, D.A., & Palm, F.C. (1986). Wald criteria for jointly testing equality and inequality restrictions. Econometrica, 54(5), 1243–1248.Google Scholar
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.Google Scholar
Lee, L. F. (1983). Generalized econometric models with selectivity. Econometrica, 51(2), 507–512.Google Scholar
Lichtenthaler, E. (2004). Organising the external technology exploitation process: Current practices and future challenges. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(2–3), 255–271.Google Scholar
Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75–93.Google Scholar
Lichtenthaler, U., & Lichtenthaler, E. (2009). A capability-based framework for open innovation: Complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8), 1315–1338.Google Scholar
Lund Vinding, A. (2006). Absorptive capacity and innovation performance: A human capital approach. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4), 507–517.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.Google Scholar
Marsh, S. J., & Stock, G. N. (2006). Creating dynamic capability: The role of intertemporal integration, knowledge retention, and interpretation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 422–436.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York, NY: The Academic Press.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organization. American Economic Review, 80(3), 511–528.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fits: Strategy, structure and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2–3), 179–208.Google Scholar
Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Bjorkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. (2003). MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6), 586–599.Google Scholar
Mowery, D. C. (1984). Firm structure, government policy, and the organization of industrial research. Business History Review, 58(4), 504–531.Google Scholar
Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1998). Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: Implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy, 27(5), 507–523.Google Scholar
Nakamura, K., & Odagiri, H. (2005). R&D boundaries of the firm: an estimation of the double-hurdle model on commissioned R&D, joint R&D, and licensing in Japan. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(7), 583–615.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.Google Scholar
Newey, L. R., & Verreynne, M. L. (2011). Multilevel absorptive capacity and interorganizational new product development: A process study. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
OECD. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed.). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. (2007). Why do firms both make and buy? An investigation of concurrent sourcing. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3), 285–311.Google Scholar
Pisano, G. (1990). The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 153–176.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E., & Rivkin, J. W. (1998). Activity systems as barriers to imitation (Working paper No. 98-066). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E., & Siggelkow, N. (2008). Contextuality within activity systems and sustainability of competitive advantage. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(2), 34–56.Google Scholar
Rammer, C., Czarnitzki, D., & Spielkamp, A. (2009). Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: Substituting technology by management in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 35–58.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364–386.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T. (2005). Knowledge flows and R&D cooperation: Firm-level evidence from Germany (ZEW Discussion Paper No. 05–22). Mannheim, Germany: Center for European Economic Research (ZEW).Google Scholar
Schmiedeberg, C. (2008). Complementarities of innovation activities: An empirical analysis of the German manufacturing sector. Research Policy, 37(9), 1492–1503.Google Scholar
Steensma, H. K., & Corley, K. G. (2000). On the performance of technology-sourcing partnerships: The interaction between partner interdependence and technology attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1045–1067.Google Scholar
Steensma, H. K., & Corley, K. G. (2001). Organizational context as a moderator of theories on firm boundaries for technology sourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 271–291.Google Scholar
Suseno, Y., & Ratten, V. (2007). A theoretical framework of alliance performance: The role of trust, social capital and knowledge development. Journal of Management & Organization, 13(1), 4–23.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79.Google Scholar
Tyler, B. B. (2001). The complementarity of cooperative and technological competencies: a resource-based perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets and relational contracting. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Zahra, A. S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, re-conceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.Google Scholar