Call for Papers: Outsourcing R&D for efficient innovation

Abstract

In the present day markets, new product development and innovation are essential for value creation. Innovation, however, hardly provides benefits if rivals are able to copy it with little or no extra cost. Consequently, being able to build an appropriability regime that provides effective protection against imitation and enables getting returns on investments in innovation is necessary. The problem is that choosing the methods to protect different kinds of innovations is not straightforward. In this paper we study appropriating from radical and incremental innovations. It is widely known that many significant differences exist between the two innovation types, and the appropriability conditions are no exception. Empirical evidence on the topic is provided by analyzing survey data collected among 299 companies. As a result, the effects of environmental dynamism and research and development (R&D) intensity on radical and incremental innovation are illustrated, and knowledge is provided on the role of the appropriability regime in enhancing the potential to profit from radical and incremental innovations.

Rethinking the ‘mirroring’ hypothesis: implications for technological modularity, tacit coordination, and radical innovation

“…Second, the measurement of radical innovation in the current study is based on managers' perceptions. Although the measurement has been adopted by Zhou and Li (), it may still lead to an overestimation of the sample firms' innovation abilities (Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen et al., ). Future research could corroborate our findings by adopting objective measures.…”

Coopetition in New Product Development Alliances: Advantages and Tensions for Incremental and Radical Innovation

“…Yet, those mechanisms are not easy to enforce in the fuzzy context of early-stage radical innovation projects, owing to the uncertainty over outputs that should be safeguarded and the inefficiency of appropriability mechanisms in radical innovation (e.g. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Sainio and Jauhiainen, 2008). Even the potential of opportunism can cause competing firms to hold up knowledge (Hamel, 1991).…”

Incremental and Radical Innovation in Coopetition—The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability

“…Indeed, appropriability mechanisms may be quite relevant with regard to various strategic activities (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Puumalainen, 2007;Levin, Klevorick, Nelson, and Winter, 1987;Pitkethly, 2001). The challenge related to protecting the incremental innovation outcomes is, however, that even though the appropriability regime is in coopetition effective in protecting the current knowledge of firms enabling such innovations, it is less useful in terms of gaining future exclusivity: incremental developments are often inherently difficult to protect against imitation because the coopetition partners do not have that much difficulty in capturing the essence of the innovation, and because different protection mechanisms may not be as easy to obtain as in the case of radical innovations (Hall, 2005;Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Sainio, and Jauhiainen, 2008;Levin et al, 1987). For example, patentability and other IPR requirements may not be met in cases in which the novelty of the new solutions needs to be proven.…”