Co-Innovation Strategies in Interfirm Innovation (PDF)

The development of co-innovation strategies: stages and interaction patterns in interfirm innovation Bart A.G. Bossink Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected] Organizations that choose or are forced to innovate in co-operation with other organizations, go through four stages of co-innovation strategy development. The stages are successively: (I) autonomous strategy making: organizations develop strategies on their own, (II) co-operative strategy making: organizations concentrate on developing innovation strategies in close co-operation with other organizations, (III) founding an organization for co-innovation: organizations found a joint organization in which they develop co-innovation programs, and (IV) realization of innovations: organizations develop innovations, based on the co-innovation strategies and programs. The description of the stages is based on an interfirm network approach and a research project in the Dutch construction industry. The stage model can be a guideline for organizations that participate in co-innovation processes and have to decide how and with whom they co-innovate. 1. Introduction This question is divided in two sub questions: Which stages can be distinguished in the interfirm he capability of organizations to co-innovate with T other organizations can be of crucial importance in sustaining and strengthening competitive positions in development of co-innovation strategies? Which interaction patterns between organizations can be markets (Håkansson, 1987; Rothwell and Dodgson, distinguished within these stages? 1991; Gemünden et al., 1992; Tidd, 1995; Berthon et al., To give answers to these questions a research project 1999; Doz et al., 2000). Organizations create new is designed and carried out. The research design, data products, processes and organizations by sharing collection methods, data analysis and limitations of the complementary resources, knowledge and competencies research design are described in the second section. A (Grandori and Soda, 1995; Osborn and Hagedoorn, literature study is carried out to identify stages and 1997; Oliver and Ebers, 1998) and go through several interaction patterns in the development of co-innova- stages of strategy making in which they interactively tion strategies. The results of this study are described in explore, develop and realize their co-innovative ambi- the third section. Case studies are carried out in the tions (Kreiner and Schultz, 1993; George and Farris, Dutch construction industry to identify stages and 1999). The interactive development of co-innovation interaction patterns of co-innovation strategies in strategies is the subject of this article. It is based on a practice. The results of the case studies are described research project with the following research question: in the fourth section. The analytical validity of the How do organizations interactively develop co-innova- stage model is discussed in the fifth section and a final tion strategies? conclusion is drawn in the sixth section. R&D Management 32, 4, 2002. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 311 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 14679310, 2002, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9310.00263 by University Of Twente Finance Department, Wiley Online Library on [28/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Bart A.G. Bossink 2. Methodology Table 1. Data collection methods exploratory case. Study of 160 Documents: In this section the research design, data collection documents * 40 Agreements methods, data analysis method and the limitations of * 33 Design documents the research design are described. * 18 Decision supportive reports * 15 Contracts * 14 Brochures * 12 Meeting agenda’s and minutes Research design * 10 Letters * 7 Project plans The case study research is carried out in the house * 6 Evaluation reports building sector of the Dutch construction industry. * 5 Planning procedures=schedules This industry is actively innovating in the field of In-depth 28 Interviews with key informants in the sustainability (Silvester, 1996; Tjallingii, 1996; Van interviews project: Hal, 2000) and organizations in this industry are used * 14 Interviews with project managers to interfirm production and innovation processes local authority (Pries and Janszen, 1995; Lampel et al., 1996; Pocock * 4 Interviews with managing directors et al., 1996; Shirazi et al., 1996; Nam and Tatum, 1997; architectural firm * 4 Interviews with managers construction Conley and Gregory, 1999; Loosemore, 1999; Bresnen company and Marshall, 2000). The case study method is used to * 2 Interviews with managers public make an in-depth study of the development of co- housing local authority innovation strategies in its context (Eisenhardt, 1989; * 2 Interviews with managing directors Yin, 1994; Cunningham, 1997). real estate agency * 1 Interview with managing director consultant’s firm * 1 Interview with managing director Data collection housing corporation The research project consists of an exploratory case In-depth 6912 Hours of observation of meetings: study and 12 analytical case studies. observations * 4312 hours in meetings of representatives In the exploratory case study a sustainable house- of local authorities, consultant’s firms, energy companies, and pressure groups building project with a market value of e50 million in * 14 hours in meetings of representatives which more than ten organizations participate is of local authorities, architectural firms, studied. The case is studied during a three-year period contractors, real estate agents, and and several research methods are used: study of consultant’s firms * 12 hours in meetings of representatives documents, in-depth interviews with key informants, of local authorities, architectural firms, and in-depth observations in meetings (Brewer and contractors, real estate agents, and Hunter, 1989; Kumar et al., 1993; Yin, 1994). An consultants’ firms overview of these research methods is given in Table 1. In the 12 analytical case studies comparable projects are studied. In these projects more than ten Table 2. Data collection methods analytical cases. organizations co-innovate and innovations are devel- oped in the field of sustainability. The projects have a Study of market value of e10 – 50 million. The 12 cases are documents 3 – 10 Project evaluation reports studied during 12 months. Each case study is based on In-depth 3 Interviews with key informants in the a study of project evaluation reports and several in- interviews project: depth interviews with key informants in the project * An interview with a project manager of (Brewer and Hunter, 1989; Kumar et al., 1993; Yin, local authority 1994). An overview of the research methods is given in * An interview with a project manager of Table 2. construction company * An interview with a project manager of architectural firm Data analysis The exploratory case study is carried out to identify Limitations of the research design and make an overview of stages and interaction patterns in the development of co-innovation strate- A limitation of the research design is that the research gies. The analytical case studies are carried out to results cannot be statistically generalized to compar- verify which stages and interaction patterns in the able cases. Another limitation of the research design is development of co-innovation strategies are analyti- that the analytical case studies focus on the verification cally valid for comparable cases (Eisenhardt, 1989; of co-innovation stages and interaction patterns that Yin, 1994; Cunningham, 1997). are identified in the exploratory case study and do not 312 R&D Management 32, 4, 2002 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 14679310, 2002, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9310.00263 by University Of Twente Finance Department, Wiley Online Library on [28/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Co-innovation strategies focus on the discovery of new stages and interaction Table 3. Interaction patterns in co-innovation strategies. patterns. Organizations... choose to or are forced to innovate and explore co-innovation possibilities with each other. 3. Development of co-innovation strategies... negotiate about costs and revenues with each other.... enter into contracts with each other. In this section an overview is given of stages and... reach agreements with each other. interaction patterns in the development of co-innova-... develop innovation plans with each tion strategies. This overview is based on a review of other. the literature.... found an organization for co-innovation with each other.... establish governance bodies in which they Stage models of the development of co- are represented.... come together to realize innovations. innovation strategies... use management methods to manage the Kreiner and Schultz (1993) and George and Farris process of innovation realization.... need innovation champions and leaders (1999) describe the development of co-innovation that drive innovation creation. strategies in dynamic networks of organizations as a... communicate with the market. process with distinctive stages. Kreiner and Schultz (1993) distinguish three stages: (1) discovery and (2) exploration of collaborative opportunities, and (3) persistently and cautiously negotiate about the re- crystallization of collaborative relations. In the first sources, knowledge and capabilities each organization stage representatives of organizations meet on a has to bring in to future co-innovation projects regular basis. Research ideas, knowledge and work (Gemünden et al., 1992; Littler et al., 1995; Robertson plans are liberally shared. The encounters are the et al., 1996; Sakakibara, 1997). They also spend a breeding grounds for new ideas and concepts. In the considerable amount of time on cautious negotiations second stage the representatives of the organizations about possible distributions of the costs and the consult literature and carry out preliminary research. revenues of future co-innovation processes (Harrigan They confer with each other about the possibilities of a and Newman, 1990; Chiesa and Manzini, 1998; joint project. In the third stage interfirm innovation Loosemore, 1999). When organizations decide to co- is formalized. George and Farris (1999) identify five innovate they enter into contracts with each other and stages: (1) recognition, (2) research, (3) relationship agree on the distribution of the costs and the revenues set-up, (4) ramp up, and (5) ongoing management. In of the co-innovation processes (Littler and Leverick, the first stage organizations become aware of their 1995; Dyer, 1997; Pietroforte, 1997; Chiesa and needs for co-innovation and of the possibilities to co- Manzini, 1998; Croisier, 1998; Slaughter, 1998; So- innovate with other organizations. In the second stage brero and Schrader, 1998). On the basis of these they examine the prospects of co-operation. In the contracts and agreements they develop innovation third stage they negotiate and define a co-innovation plans. In the plans the organizations lay down which project and in the fourth and fifth stage they realize innovations they produce, how they co-operate, and this project. Kreiner and Schultz (1993) and George what the individual and shared responsibilities are and Farris (1999) describe some co-innovative interac- (Håkanson, 1993; Littler et al., 1995; Ho Park, 1996). tion patterns but do not present an explicit overview of They found an organization for co-innovation in which co-innovative interaction patterns within the stages. they develop innovations (Luke et al., 1989; Rothwell and Dodgson, 1991; Håkanson, 1993; Croisier, 1998). This organization has the form of a(n) alliance, joint Interaction patterns in the development of venture, quasi firm, learning network, interfirm net- co-innovation strategies work, R&D consortium or partnership (Luke et al., In literature several co-innovative interaction patterns 1989; Wissema and Euser, 1991; Duysters and Hage- are described. In this sub section an overview of these doorn, 1995; Kotabe and Swan, 1995; Littler and interaction patterns is made (see Table 3). Leverick, 1995; Tidd, 1995; Dyer, 1997; Conley and Organizations choose to or are forced by the Gregory, 1999; Bresnen and Marshall, 2000; Doz et al., environment to innovate (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1985; 2000). The co-innovating organizations decide which Marcus, 1988; Luke et al., 1989; Haveman, 1992; governance structures they use to manage the organi- Weisenfeld-Schenk, 1994; Bianchi, 1996; Shirazi et al., zation for co-innovation (Håkanson, 1993; Ho Park, 1996; Venegas and Alarcón, 1997; Raider, 1998; Toole, 1996; Croisier, 1998), come together in this organiza- 1998). When they do not have the capabilities to tion and start realizing the innovations they planned. innovate on their own, they explore the possibility to Innovation champions and innovation leaders are the co-innovate with other organizations (Miles and Snow, driving forces in the organization for co-innovation. 1986, 1992; Ibarra, 1992; Powell et al., 1996). They They drive the creation and realization of most of the # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 4, 2002 313 14679310, 2002, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9310.00263 by University Of Twente Finance Department, Wiley Online Library on [28/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Bart A.G. Bossink planned innovations (Maidique, 1980; Roberts and Table 4. Co-innovative interaction patterns. Fusfeld, 1980; Nam and Tatum, 1997). The co- Stage Interaction pattern innovating organizations use management methods like project management and control systems to plan and I. Autonomous strategy * Organizations choose to or control the innovation processes in the organization for making are forced to innovate and co-innovation effectively and efficiently (Eisenhardt and explore co-innovation possibilities with each other. Tabrizi, 1995; Lampel et al., 1996; Croisier, 1998). To sell the innovative products and services the organiza- II. Co-operative strategy * Organizations negotiate tions for co-innovation intensively communicate with making about costs and revenues with each other. the market (Bruce and Rodgus, 1991; Bailetti and Callahan, 1995; Athaide et al., 1996; Robertson et al., III. Founding an * Organizations enter into 1996; Atuahene-Gima, 1996; Berthon et al., 1999; Roy organization for contracts with each other. co-innovation * Organizations reach and Cochrane, 1999) and position the innovations in agreements with each other. one or more market segments (Zajac and Olsen, 1993; * Organizations develop Dyer, 1997; Hwang and Burgers, 1997). innovation plans with each other. * Organizations found an organization for co- 4. Development of co-innovation strategies in innovation with each other. the Dutch construction industry * Organizations establish governance bodies in which they are represented. In this section a description is given of the stages and interaction patterns that are identified in the explora- IV. Realization of * Organizations come tory case study and all 12 analytical cases studies. innovations together to realize innovations. The identified developmental stages of co-innova- * Organizations use tion strategies are (see Figure 1): management methods to manage the process of I. Autonomous strategy making innovation realization. II. Co-operative strategy making * Organizations need III. Founding an organization for co-innovation innovation champions and IV. Realization of innovations leaders that drive innovation creation. * Organizations communicate The interaction patterns that are distinguished with the market. within these stages are listed in Table 4. I II IV III Figure 1. Four stages in the development of co-innovation strategies. 314 R&D Management 32, 4, 2002 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 14679310, 2002, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9310.00263 by University Of Twente Finance Department, Wiley Online Library on [28/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Co-innovation strategies Stage I. Autonomous strategy making architects, consultants and contractors, symbolized by circles, examine the potential profits of co-innovation Stage I is represented by quadrant I in Figure 1. The with each other, symbolized by arrows between the organizations of the authorities, real estate developers, circles. architects, consultants and contractors are symbolized In their search for organizations to co-innovate with, by circles and are located in a fixed position and the organizations try to assess the costs and benefits of relation to each other. In this stage the organizations co-innovation strategies. Sustainable construction of- operate autonomously and rely on their autonomous ficers of municipalities, real estate developers, archi- strategies. tects, consultants and construction companies Fundamental changes in the political, social, and frequently meet at their offices, at seminars and at economical climate, and changing relations with trade fairs. They have informal contact about the stakeholders, force and stimulate the organizations to distribution of costs and revenues in future co- develop sustainable innovation strategies. The Dutch innovation projects. The ownership of scarce resources construction industry is confronted with governmental and scarce knowledge is the basis of their negotiation demands to innovate in the field of sustainability. In power. The power of authorities and real estate the National Environmental Policy Plans the Dutch developers is based on the ownership of building lots. government states that every organization in the Consultants and architects specialize in sustainable construction industry has to work in a sustainable construction projects and develop checklists and way. In the decade 1990 –2000 more than 100 laws and methodologies for sustainable design. Their power is regulations are promulgated. The laws and regulations based on their knowledge about sustainability. The force and stimulate organizations to develop sustain- power of real estate developers is based on their access able innovations. The government and associations of to risk capital, and the power of construction architects found knowledge centres in every province companies on their ability to build the sustainable in the country. The centres facilitate the transfer of designs. Organizations that successfully co-innovated knowledge on sustainability to their members. To before try to work with the same team of partners stimulate the development of sustainable innovations again. Forty Architectural firms and consultant’s firms by market parties the provincial and municipal have a national reputation for their capability to authorities participate in large-scale commercial house develop and design sustainable objects and infrastruc- building projects. tures. Sustainable construction officers of municipa- Organizations examine the possibilities of innovation lities and real estate developers contact and hire them with other organizations. Every year a knowledge centre when they want to develop a sustainable construction that is founded and financed by the Dutch government project. organizes a Conference on Sustainable Construction. The organizations of the authorities, real estate This conference is a meeting point for representatives of developers, architects, consultants and contractors provincial and municipal authorities, real estate devel- prepare for the founding of organizations for co- opers, architectural firms, consultant’s firms and con- innovation. On the borderline between quadrant II and struction companies. Sustainable construction officers III in Figure 1 the preparations for the founding of an of medium-sized and large municipalities coordinate organization for co-innovation are symbolized by a contacts between the authorities and market parties and dotted circle, surrounded by four closed circles, contacts between market parties. In the whole country representing the co-innovating organizations. the authorities and market parties start developing sustainable construction projects with a market value of e10–100 million. Real estate developers, architects, Stage III. Founding an organization for consultants and construction companies participate in co-innovation these sustainable construction projects to develop Stage III is represented by quadrant III in Figure 1. capabilities in this field. The foundation of an organization for co-innovation is A transition of state takes place. This is symbolized symbolized by the transformation of the dotted circle in Figure 1 by the drawing on the borderline between into a closed one. quadrant I and II. The organizations of the authorities, In this stage the founding of organizations for co- real estate developers, architects, consultants and innovation is formalized with contracts and agreements. contractors, symbolized by circles, explore the possi- In a project with a market value of e50 million bilities for co-innovation with each other. At this approximately ten organizations for co-innovation are moment they are free of obligations. founded. In these organizations for co-innovation the local authority, a real estate developer, an architect and Stage II. Co-operative strategy making a construction company participate. The organizations agree on a basic distribution of costs and incomes. Stage II is represented by quadrant II in Figure 1. The Contracts are used to secure a basic level of agreement. organizations of the authorities, real estate developers, The local authority develops the infrastructure and the # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 4, 2002 315 14679310, 2002, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9310.00263 by University Of Twente Finance Department, Wiley Online Library on [28/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Bart A.G. Bossink real estate developer the houses. They sign a contract in developers, function as driving forces in the realization which they agree about their investments and the of the planned innovations. They initiate and con- coordination of their activities. To realize the project tribute to the development of sustainable systems for the local authority signs contracts with a consultant drainage, ecological gardens, methodologies for the use and a contractor, and the real estate developer signs of solar energy, methods for the selection of sustain- contracts with an architect, a consultant and a able materials, methods for waste management, construction company. Once contracts are signed and checklists and methodologies for sustainable design, agreements are made the organizations concentrate on environmental quality systems and environmental meeting their obligations. The co-innovating organiza- impact assessments. Some architectural and consul- tions establish a governance body to manage the tants’ firms own trademarked checklists and meth- activities in the organizations for co-innovation. The odologies for sustainable design. governance body consists of representatives of the local The organizations for co-innovation head for the authority and the real estate developer. realization of their innovation plans. The designs for The organizations for co-innovation develop design residential areas and houses are evaluated with a drafts and lists of sustainable materials to be used. The methodology that is approved by the Dutch govern- designs are carefully documented and design changes ment. Ninety percent of the designs is classified as are integrated into the design contracts. When the co- ‘innovative’ or ‘very innovative’. The governance innovation plans are completed, the co-innovating bodies manage the innovation realization processes organizations increase the autonomy of the organiza- with project management methods such as: milestones tions for co-innovation. The organizations for co- and deliverables, accounting systems and planning innovation start with the realization of the planned systems. innovations. When the co-innovating organizations are satisfied On the borderline between quadrant III and IV in with the innovation results, they dismantle the Figure 1 the increasing autonomy of an organization organizations for co-innovation. They concentrate on for co-innovation is symbolized by the coming apart of the development of an autonomous strategy to exploit the circle in the middle, representing the organization their new capabilities. Real estate developers, archi- for co-innovation, from the surrounding circles, tectural firms and consultants’ firms develop new representing the co-innovating organizations. sustainable design methodologies and real estate developers and construction companies position them- selves as green organizations. Trade companies trans- Stage IV. Realization of innovations form into trade & consulting companies and advise Stage IV is symbolized by quadrant IV in Figure 1. architects and construction companies how to use new The lines between the circle in the middle, representing sustainable construction materials. Consultants trans- an organization for co-innovation, and the surround- form into project managers and are hired by munici- ing circles, representing the co-innovating organiza- palities and real estate developers to manage tions, symbolize the relationship between the co- sustainable construction projects. Traditional con- innovating organizations with the organization for struction companies transform into sustainable con- co-innovation. struction companies. The organizations for co-innovation communicate The dismantling of an organization for co-innova- with potential buyers and try to draw their attention to tion is symbolized in Figure 1 by the transformation of the value of the residential areas and houses they the network of organizations from quadrant IV to I. develop. Ambitious publicity campaigns are initiated. The organizations are situated in a renewed state of the The projects are promoted in the newspapers and on first stage. television. Local authorities, real estate developers, architects, consultants and construction companies present their innovative results on information meet- 5. Discussion ings and trade fairs. The co-innovating organizations are conscious of In this section the analytical validity of the model the fact that innovation value is created in interaction described is discussed and directions for further with each other and is not created independently. Co- research are suggested. operative ties grow strong. Promises are kept and The research is designed and carried out to generate partnering organizations trust upon each other. a descriptive model for the development of co- One or more innovation leaders and champions innovation strategies and to generate a model that enter the stage. The innovation leaders and champions can be analytically generalized. The model that is are the drivers of the conception and realization of described in the third and fourth section is based on an sustainable innovations. Representatives of the local in-depth case study and a confirmation in 12 compar- authority, the consultants they hire to support them, able cases. This research design and the outcomes and the architects that are hired by the real estate indicate that the model is analytically valid for the 316 R&D Management 32, 4, 2002 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 14679310, 2002, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9310.00263 by University Of Twente Finance Department, Wiley Online Library on [28/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Co-innovation strategies description of comparable cases: Dutch construction (Lampel et al., 1996), Sweden (Bröchner and Grand- projects in the house building sector with a market ison, 1992), the United Kingdom (Korczynski, 1996) value of e10 to 50 million, in which more than ten and the United States (Nam and Tatum, 1989; Tatum, organizations co-innovate in the field of sustainability. 1989; Nam and Tatum, 1992; Lampel et al., 1996; Nam International research identifies co-innovative inter- and Tatum, 1997). Although these industries have their action patterns in construction industries in Canada own specific characteristics and dynamics the research Table 5. Co-innovative interaction patterns world-wide. Industry Country Aerospace * Russia (Shaw, 1996) Agriculture * The Netherlands (Wissema and Euser, 1991) Automotive * Japan (Baba, 1989; Gulati, 1995; Dyer, 1997) * United States of America (Gulati, 1995; Dyer, 1997; Doz et al., 2000) Biotechnology * Denmark (Kreiner and Schultz, 1993) * Germany (Whittaker and Bower, 1994) * Switzerland (Whittaker and Bower, 1994) * United Kingdom (Rothwell and Dodgson, 1991; Whittaker and Bower, 1994) * United States of America (Shan et al., 1994; Whittaker and Bower, 1994; Powell et al., 1996; Powell, 1998) Chemical * France (Bidault et al., 1992) Construction * Canada (Lampel et al., 1996) * the Netherlands (Pries and Janszen, 1995) * Sweden (Bröchner and Grandison, 1992) * United Kingdom (Korczynski, 1996) * United States of America (Nam and Tatum, 1989; Tatum, 1989; Nam and Tatum, 1992; Lampel et al., 1996; Nam and Tatum, 1997) Consumer electronics * Europe (Tidd, 1995) * Japan (Baba, 1989; Tidd, 1995) * United States of America (Tidd, 1995; Ho Park, 1996) Education * United States of America (Kraatz, 1998) Energy * Japan (Sakakibara, 1997) * United States of America (Doz et al., 2000) Food * Sweden (Elg and Johansson, 1997) Health care * Canada (probably) (George and Farris, 1999) * United States of America (Luke et al., 1989; Goes and Ho Park, 1997) Information and * Japan (Duysters and Hagedoorn, 1995) communication * United Kingdom (Littler and Leverick, 1995; Littler et al., 1995) * United States of America (Ouchi and Kremen Bolton, 1988; Wagner, 1991; Duysters and Hagedoorn, 1995; Doz et al., 2000) Metal * Europe (Gulati, 1995) * Japan (Gulati, 1995) * United States of America (Gulati, 1995) Petrochemical * France (Bidault et al., 1992) * Japan (Sakakibara, 1997) Pharmaceutical * Canada (probably) (George and Farris, 1999) * France (Bidault et al., 1992) * Germany (Whittaker and Bower, 1994) * Switzerland (Whittaker and Bower, 1994) * United Kingdom (Whittaker and Bower, 1994) * United States of America (Whittaker and Bower, 1994; Powell, 1998) Pump * United States of America (Ouchi and Kremen Bolton, 1988) Semiconductor * Asia (Macher et al., 1998; Stuart, 1998) * Europe (Macher et al., 1998; Stuart, 1998) * Japan (Ouchi and Kremen Bolton, 1988; Kremen Bolton et al., 1994; Sakakibara, 1997; Macher et al., 1998; Stuart, 1998) * United States of America (Spencer and Grindley, 1993; Kremen Bolton et al., 1994; Browning et al., 1995; Macher et al., 1998; Stuart, 1998) Textile * France (Bidault et al., 1992) # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 4, 2002 317 14679310, 2002, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9310.00263 by University Of Twente Finance Department, Wiley Online Library on [28/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Bart A.G. Bossink design and its outcomes and these international Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996) Market orientation and innova- research results indicate that (parts of) the model is tion. Journal of Business Research, 35, 2, 93 – 104. analytically valid for comparable cases in construction Baba, Y. (1989) The dynamics of continuous innovation in industries in other countries. Further research can be scale-intensive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 1, 89 – 100. carried out to verify the analytical validity of (parts of) Bailetti, A.J. and Callahan, J.R. (1995) Specifying the the model in construction industries in other countries. structure which integrates a firm’s skills with market International research also identifies co-innovative needs. R&D Management, 25, 2, 227– 240. interaction patterns in: the aerospace industry, agri- Berthon, P., Hulbert, J.M. and Pit, L.F. (1999) To serve or cultural industry, biotechnology, chemical industry, create? Strategic orientations toward customers and consumer electronics, education, energy industry, food innovation. California Management Review, 42, 1, 37 – 58. industry, health care, information and communication Bianchi, G. (1996) Galileo used to live here; Tuscany Hi industry, metal industry, petrochemical industry, phar- Tech: the network and its poles. R&D Management, 26, 3, maceutical industry, pump industry, semiconductor 199– 212. industry and the textile industry in various countries Bidault, F., Laurent, P. and Segla, C. (1992) Competitive and all over the world. In Table 5 an overview is given of co-operative strategies in engineering services. Long Range Planning, 25, 3, 43 – 49. industries and countries in which co-innovative inter- Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000) Partnering in construc- action patterns are identified. This indicates that parts tion: a critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas. of the model are analytically valid for a description of Construction Management and Economics, 18, 2, 229– 237. co-innovation processes in different industries and Brewer, J. and Hunter, A. (1989) Multimethod Research: a countries. Further research can be carried out to verify Synthesis of Styles. Newbury Park: Sage. the analytical validity of the model in the industries and Bröchner, J. and Grandison, B. (1992) R&D cooperation by countries listed in Table 5. Swedish contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118, 1, 3 – 16. Browning, L.D., Beyer, J.M. and Shetler, J.C. (1995) 6. Conclusion Building cooperation in a competitive industry: Sematech and the semiconductor industry. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1, 113– 151. On the basis of an interfirm network approach and a Bruce, M. and Rodgus, G. (1991) Innovation strategies in the research project in the Dutch construction industry four enzyme industry. R&D Management, 21, 4, 319– 330. stages and 11 interaction patterns in the development of Chiesa, V. and Manzini, R. (1998) Organizing for technolo- co-innovation strategies are identified and described (see gical collaborations: a managerial perspective. R&D Figure 1 and Table 4). Organizations that choose or are Management, 28, 3, 199– 212. forced to innovate in co-operation with other organiza- Conley, M.A. and Gregory, R.A. (1999) Partnering on small tions go through four stages of co-innovation strategy construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering development. In the first stage they develop strategies on and Management, 125, 5, 320– 324. their own. In the second stage they concentrate on Croisier, B. (1998) The governance of external research: developing innovation strategies in close co-operation empirical test of some transaction cost related factors. with other organizations. In the third stage they found R&D Management, 28, 4, 289– 298. Cunningham, J.B. (1997) Case study principles for different an organization for co-innovation in which they develop types of cases. Quality & Quantity, 31, 4, 401– 423. innovation programmes. And in the fourth stage they Doz. Y.L., Olk, P.M. and Smith Ring, P. (2000) Formation develop innovations, based on the innovation strategies processes of R&D consortia; which path to take: where does and programmes they developed in the second and third it lead? Strategic Management Journal, 21, SI, 239–266. stage. When the co-innovating organizations are satisfied Duysters, G. and Hagedoorn, J. (1995) Strategic groups and with the innovation results they dismantle the organiza- interfirm networks in international high-tech industries. tion for co-innovation. This situates them in a renewed Journal of Management Studies, 32, 3, 359– 381. state of the first stage. Organizations that want to Dyer, J.H. (1997) Effective interfirm collaboration: how strengthen or have to defend their autonomous positions firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction in markets partially give up their autonomous position, value. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 7, 535 –556. develop and implement co-innovation strategies with Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 532– 550. other organizations, and use the results of these strategies Eisenhardt, K.M. and Tabrizi, B.N. (1995) Accelerating to reinforce their autonomous market positions. adaptive processes: product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1, 84 – 110. References Elg, U. and Johansson, U. (1997) Decision making in inter- firm networks as a political process. Organization Studies, Athaide, G.A., Meyers, P.W. and Wilemon, D.L. (1996) 18, 3, 361 –384. Seller-buyer interactions during the commercialization of Gemünden, H.G., Heydebreck, P. and Herden, R. (1992) technological process innovations. Journal of Product Technological interweavement: a means of achieving Innovation Management, 13, 5, 406– 421. innovation success. R&D Management, 22, 4, 359–376. 318 R&D Management 32, 4, 2002 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 14679310, 2002, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9310.00263 by University Of Twente Finance Department, Wiley Online Library on [28/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Co-innovation strategies George, V.P. and Farris, G. (1999) Performance of alliances: Littler, D. and Leverick, F. (1995) Joint ventures for product formative stages and changing organizational and envir- development: learning from experience. Long Range onmental influences. R&D Management, 29, 4, 379– 390. Planning, 28, 3, 58 –67. Goes, J.B. and Ho Park, S. (1997) Interorganizational links Littler, D., Leverick, F. and Bruce, M. (1995) Factors and innovation: the case of hospital services. Academy of affecting the process of collaborative product develop- Management Journal, 40, 3, 673– 696. ment: a study of UK manufacturers of information and Grandori, A. and Soda, G. (1995) Inter-firm networks: communications technology products. Journal of Product antecedents, mechanisms and forms. Organization Studies, Innovation Management, 12, 1, 16 – 32. 16, 2, 183– 214. Loosemore, M. (1999) A grounded theory of construction Gulati, R. (1995) Does familiarity breed trust? The implica- crisis management. Construction Management and Eco- tions of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. nomics, 17, 1, 9 – 19. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1, 85 – 112. Luke, R., Begun, J.W. and Pointer, D.D. (1989) Quasi firms: Håkanson, L. (1993) Managing cooperative research and strategic interorganizational forms in the health care development: partner selection and contract design. R&D industry. Academy of Management Review, 14, 1, 9 – 19. Management, 23, 4, 273– 286. Macher, J.T., Mowery, D.C. and Hodges, D.A. (1998) Håkansson, H. (ed.) (1987) Industrial Technological Devel- Reversal or fortune? The recovery of the US semiconduc- opment: a Network Approach. London: Croom Helm. tor industry. California Management Review, 41, 1, 107– Harrigan, K.R. and Newman, W.H. (1990) Bases of 136. interorganization co-operation: propensity, power, persis- Maidique, M.A. (1980) Entrepreneurs, champions and tence. Journal of Management Studies, 27, 4, 417–434. technological innovation. Sloan Management Review, 21, Haveman. H.A. (1992) Between a rock and a hard place: 2, 59 – 76. organizational change and performance under conditions Marcus, A.A. (1988) Responses to externally induced of fundamental environmental transformation. Adminis- innovation: their effects on organizational performance. trative Science Quarterly, 37, 1, 48 – 75. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 4, 387– 402. Ho Park, S. (1996) Managing an interorganizational net- Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1986) Organizations: new work: a framework of the institutional mechanism for concepts for new forms. California Management Review, network control. Organization Studies, 17, 5, 795– 824. 28, 3, 62 –73. Hrebiniak, L.G. and Joyce, W.F. (1985) Organizational Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1992) Causes of failure in adaptation: strategic choice and environmental determin- network organizations. California Management Review, 34, ism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 3, 336– 349. 4, 53 – 72. Hwang, P. and Burgers, W.P. (1997) The many faces of Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B. (1989) Toward understanding multi-firm alliances. Lessons for managers. California of product innovation process in construction. Journal of Management Review, 39, 3, 101– 117. Construction Engineering and Management, 115, 4, 517– Ibarra, H. (1992) Structural alignments, individual strategies, 534. and managerial action: elements toward a network theory Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B. (1992) Strategies for technology of getting things done. In Nohria, N. and Eccles, R.G. push: lessons from construction innovations. Journal of (eds), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Construction Engineering and Management, 118, 3, 507– Action. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 524. 165–188. Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B. (1997) Leaders and champions Korczynski, M. (1996) The low trust route to economic for construction innovation. Construction Management and development: interfirm relations in the UK engineering Economics, 15, 3, 259– 270. construction industry in the 1980s and 1990s. Journal of Oliver, A.L. and Ebers, M. (1998) Networking network Management Studies, 33, 6, 787– 808. studies: an analysis of conceptual configurations in the Kotabe, M. and Swan, K.S. (1995) The role of strategic study of inter-organizational relationships. Organization alliances in high technology new product development. Studies, 19, 4, 549–583. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 8, 621– 636. Osborn, R.N. and Hagedoorn, J. (1997) The institutionaliza- Kraatz, M.S. (1998) Learning by association? Interorganiza- tion and evolutionary dynamics of interorganizational tional networks and adaptation to environmental change. alliances and networks. Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 6, 621– 643. 40, 20, 261– 278. Kreiner, K. and Schultz, M. (1993) Informal collaboration in Ouchi, W.G. and Kremen Bolton, M. (1988) The logic of R&D: the formation of networks across organizations. joint research and development. California Management Organization Studies, 14, 2, 189– 209. Review, 30, 3, 9 –33. Kremen Bolton, M., Malmrose, R. and Ouchi, W. (1994) The Pietroforte, R. (1997) Communication and governance in the organization of innovation in the United States and Japan: building process. Construction Economics and Manage- neoclassical and relational contracting. Journal of Manage- ment, 15, 1, 71 – 82. ment Studies, 31, 5, 653– 679. Pocock, J.B., Hyun, C.T., Liu, L.Y. and Kim, M.K. (1996) Kumar, N., Stern, L.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1993) Conduct- Relationship between project interaction and performance ing interorganizational research using key informants. indicators. Journal of Construction Engineering and Man- Academy of Management Journal, 36, 6, 1633–1651. agement, 122, 2, 165– 176. Lampel, J., Miller, R. and Floricel, S. (1996) Information Powell, W.W. (1998) Learning from collaboration. Knowl- asymmetries and technological innovation in large engi- edge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceu- neering construction projects. R&D Management, 26, 4, tical industries. California Management Review, 40, 3, 357–370. 228– 240. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002 R&D Management 32, 4, 2002 319 14679310, 2002, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9310.00263 by University Of Twente Finance Department, Wiley Online Library on [28/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Bart A.G. Bossink Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) Spencer, W.J. and Grindley, P. (1993) Sematech after five Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innova- years: high technology consortia and US competitiveness. tion: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative California Management Review, 35, 4, 9 –32. Science Quarterly, 41, 1, 116– 145. Stuart, T.E. (1998) Network position and propensities to Pries, F. and Janszen, F. (1995) Innovation in the construc- collaborate: an investigation of strategic alliance formation tion industry: the dominant role of the environment. in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Construction Management and Economics, 13, 1, 43 – 51. Quarterly, 43, 3, 668– 698. Raider, H.J. (1998) Market structure and innovation. Social Tatum, C.B. (1989) Organizing to increase innovation in Science Research, 27, 1, 1 – 21. construction firms. Journal of Construction Engineering Robertson, H., Pearson, A.W. and Ball, D.F. (1996) The and Management, 115, 4, 602– 617. development of networks between engineering contractors Tidd, J. (1995) Development of novel products through and their clients: the special case of partnering. R&D intraorganizational and interorganizational networks; the Management, 26, 4, 371– 380. case of home automation. Journal of Product Innovation Roberts, E.B. and Fusfeld, A.R. (1981) Staffing the Management, 12, 4, 307– 322. innovative technology based organization. Sloan Manage- Tjallingii, S.P. (1996) Ecological conditions and structure in ment Review, 22, 3, 19 – 34. environmental planning. PhD Thesis. Technical University Rothwell, R. and Dodgson, M. (1991) External linkages and of Delft. innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises. R&D Toole, T.M. (1998) Uncertainty and home builders adoption Management, 21, 2, 125– 137. of technological innovations. Journal of Construction Roy, R. and Cochrane, S.P. (1999) Development of a Engineering and Management, 124, 4, 323– 332. customer focused strategy in speculative house building. Van Hal, A. (2000) Beyond the demonstration project: the Construction Management and Economics, 17, 6, 777– 787. diffusion of environmental innovations in housing. PhD Sakakibara, M. (1997) Heterogeneity of firm capabilities and Thesis. Technical University of Delft. cooperative research and development: an empirical Venegas, P. and Alarcón, L.F. (1997) Selecting long-term examination of motives. Strategic Management Journal, strategies for construction firms. Journal of Construction 18, SI, 143– 164. Engineering and Management, 123, 4, 388– 398. Shan, W., Walker, G. and Kogut, B. (1994) Interfirm Wagner, H.E. (1991) The open corporation. California cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology Management Review, 33, 4, 46 – 60. industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5, 387–394. Weisenfeld-Schenk, U. (1994) Technology strategies and the Shaw, B. (1996) Networking in the Russian aerospace Miles & Snow typology: a study of the biotechnology industry. R&D Management, 26, 3, 255– 265. industries. R&D Management, 24, 1, 57– 64. Shirazi, B., Langford, D.A. and Rowlinson, S.M. (1996) Whittaker, E. and Bower, D.J. (1994) A shift to external Organizational structures in the construction industry. alliances for product development in the pharmaceutical Construction Management and Economics, 14, 3, 199– 212. industry. R&D Management, 24, 3, 249– 260. Silvester, S. (1996) Demonstration projects and energy Wissema, J.G. and Euser, L. (1991) Successful innovation efficient housing. PhD Thesis. Erasmus University, Rot- through inter-company networks. Long Range Planning, terdam (in Dutch). 24, 6, 33 – 39. Slaughter, E.S. (1998) Models of construction innovation. Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 3, 226– 231. Zajac, E.J. and Olsen, C.P. (1993) From transaction cost to Sobrero, M. and Schrader, S. (1998) Structuring inter-firm transactional value analysis: implications for the study of relationships: a meta-analytic approach. Organization interorganizational strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 4, 585–615. Studies, 30, 1, 131– 146 320 R&D Management 32, 4, 2002 # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002

Co-Innovation Strategies in Interfirm Innovation (PDF)

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue