Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:54:52.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic collaboration of R&D entities for technology convergence: Exploring organizational differences within the triple helix

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Seongkyoon Jeong
Seongkyoon Jeong*
Affiliation:
Department of R&D Strategy, Korea Institute of Machinery & Materials, Daejeon, South Korea
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on a contextual framework of the organizational differences between types of research and development entities, this study examines how organizational contexts affect the advent of technology convergence. It demonstrates the effects of research and development entity types and alliances using the multi-assignation analysis of technology domains and rich data on government-supported research and development programs in South Korea. The findings show that technology convergence is likely to occur when a university develops technology alone or in collaboration with another research and development actor. These results reflect the important role of incentive structure and collaboration strategies in increasing the development of converging technologies.

Keywords

interdisciplinaryR&D strategytechnology convergenceR&D alliance
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , March 2014 , pp. 227 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Arthur, B. W. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Athreye, S., Keeble, D. (2000). Technological convergence, globalisation and ownership in the UK computer industry. Technovation, 20, 227–245.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, W. S. (2006). Transformative concepts in scientific convergence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1093, 24–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, W., Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms – Evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33(2), 209–223.Google Scholar
Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., Veugelers, R. (2004). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22, 1237–1263.Google Scholar
Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492.Google Scholar
Bercovitz, J. E. L., Feldman, M. P. (2007). Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy, 36(7), 930–948.Google Scholar
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655.Google Scholar
Bozeman, B., Fay, D., Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carayol, N., Thi, T. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research? Research Evaluation, 14(1), 70–79.Google Scholar
Cohen, W., Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, C. S., Bröring, S., Leker, J. (2010). Anticipating converging industries using publicly available data. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(3), 385–395.Google Scholar
Curran, C. S., Leker, J. (2009). Employing STN AnaVist to forecast converging industries. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 637–664.Google Scholar
Curran, C. S., Leker, J. (2011). Patent indicators for monitoring convergence – Examples from NFF and ICT. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, T. K., Teng, B. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eom, B., Lee, K. (2010). Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy, 39(5), 625–639.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.Google Scholar
Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., Luzzi, A. (2007). The market for patents in Europe. Research Policy, 36(8), 1163–1183.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, B. (2008). The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output? Research Policy, 37, 41–58.Google Scholar
Greene, W. (2003). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Grigg, L. (1999). Cross-disciplinary research. A discussion paper (Australian Research Council Commissioned Report No. 61). Canberra, Australia: Australian Research Council.Google Scholar
Hacklin, F. (2008). Management of convergence in innovation: Strategies and capabilities for value creation beyond blurring industry boundaries. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hagedoorn, J., Link, A., Vonortas, N. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29, 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkanson, L. (1993). Managing cooperative research and development: Partner selection and contract design. R&D Management, 23(4), 273–285.Google Scholar
Karvonen, M., Lehtovaara, M., Kässi, T. (2012). Build-up of understanding of technological convergence: Evidence from printed intelligence industry. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 9(3), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, M. L. (1996). Remarks on the economic implications of convergence. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(4), 1079–1095.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Jung, U., Jeong, S. (2009). A study on the status and supporting strategy of national R&D programs related to the convergence technology. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 12(2), 413–429.Google Scholar
Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries. Knowledge, disciplinarities and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Kodama, F. (1991). Analyzing Japanese high technologies: The techno paradigm shift. London, England: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Kodama, F. (1992). Technology fusion and the new R&D. Harvard Business Review, 70(4), 70–78.Google Scholar
Kodama, F. (1995). Emerging patterns of innovation: Sources of Japan's technological edge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. H., Bae, Z., Lee, J. (1991). Performance and adaptive roles of the government-supported research institute in South Korea. World Development, 19(10), 1421–1440.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Kim, M. S. (2012). Inter-technology networks to support innovation strategy: An analysis of Korea's new growth engines. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 88–104.Google Scholar
Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A. L., Zucker, L., Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7, 428–443.Google Scholar
Lind, J. (2004). Convergence: History of term usage and lessons for firm strategists. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial ITS Conference, 4–7 September, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Llerena, P., Meyer-Krahmer, F. (2003). Interdisciplinary research and the organization of the university: General challenges and a case study. In A. Geuna, J. A. Salter & W. Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance (pp. 69–88). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2), 247–264.Google Scholar
March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.Google Scholar
Metzger, N., Zare, R. N. (1999). Science policy – Interdisciplinary research: From belief to reality. Science, 283, 642–643.Google Scholar
Meyer-Krahmer, F., Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.Google Scholar
Min, C. (2010). Analysis of the compensation level and portfolio for advanced S&T manpower. 18(1), 220–246.Google Scholar
Miotti, L., Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32(8), 1481–1499.Google Scholar
Morillo, F., Bordons, M., Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noh, J., Chung, M., Rah, J. (2010). Analysis on the patterns of technological innovation in Korean manufacturing sector in accordance with technology intensity. Journal of Technology Innovation, 18(2), 33–58.Google Scholar
Nordmann, A. (2004). Converging technologies – Shaping the future of European societies (EUR 21357). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Oh, D., Kim, Y., Ahn, H. (2010). An analysis of international cooperation in the public research and development programs of Korea. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 18(2), 43–67.Google Scholar
Palmer, C. L. (1999). Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 242–253.Google Scholar
Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, D., Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, A. L., Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.Google Scholar
Prahalad, C. K., Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 66, 79–91.Google Scholar
Qin, J., Lancaster, F. W., Allen, B. (1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 893–916.Google Scholar
Rhoten, D. (2004). Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition. Items – Social Science Research Council, 5(1–2), 6–11.Google Scholar
Roco, M. C., Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Converging technologies for improving human performance. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, N. (1963). Technological change in the machine-tool industry, 1840–1910. Journal of Economic History, 23(4), 414–443.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, N. (1983). Inside the black box – Technology and economics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rothaermel, F., Deeds, D. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201–221.Google Scholar
Sakakibara, M. (2001). Cooperative research and development: Who participates and in which industries do projects take place? Research Policy, 30(7), 993–1018.Google Scholar
Sanchez, A. M., Tejedor, A. P. (1995). University-industry relationships in peripheral regions: The case of Aragon in Spain. Technovation, 15(10), 613–625.Google Scholar
Sanz-Menéndez, L., Bordons, M., Zulueta, A. M. (2001). Interdisciplinarity as a multidimensional concept: Its measure in three different research areas. Research Evaluation, 10(1), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seo, Y., Yang, D. (2011). The empirical study on relationship between CT R&D subsidy program and R&D performance in S. Korea. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 19(2), 53–76.Google Scholar
Small, H. (1999). A passage through science: Crossing disciplinary boundaries. Library Trends, 48, 72–108.Google Scholar
Stevens, G. A., Burley, J. (1997). 3,000 raw ideas = 1 commercial success! Research-Technology Management, 40(3), 16–27.Google Scholar
Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K. (2008). The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 96–115.Google Scholar
Teece, D. F., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tegart, G. (2005). Converging technologies and their implications for technology transfer: The cases of European networks (N EuroNet) and NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno) technologies as drivers of change. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 7(4), 468–476.Google Scholar
Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947–967.Google Scholar
Thursby, J. G., Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.Google Scholar
Tijssen, R. J. W. (1992). A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research. Research Policy, 21(1), 27–44.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T., Tijssen, R. (2000). Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: Analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation, 9(3), 183–187.Google Scholar
Van Rijinsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K. (2010). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.Google Scholar
Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., Rafols, I. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.Google Scholar
Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), 171–174.Google Scholar
Winter, E. (2004). Public communication of science and technology. Science Communication, 25(3), 288–293.Google Scholar
Wolbring, G. (2008). Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21, 25–40.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A. (1996). Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(4), 289–321.Google Scholar
Ziman, J. (1994). Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar