2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2005.02.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Innovation risks of strategic outsourcing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
130
1
5

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 176 publications
(139 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
3
130
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…This explanation is in line with the assertion that strategic and radical innovations are likely to be found in inter-organizational relationships and networks where firms seek access to resources and capabilities that cannot be found internally (Dewar and Dutton 1986;Henderson and Clark 1990), also known as complementary assets (Teece 1986). For example, inter-organizational networks can facilitate the development of the joint research capability required for strategic innovation, which is greater than the research capability that the client firm can develop on its own (Powell 1996;Hoecht and Trott 2006). A joint research capability may still lead to a continuous bargaining process between the client and supplier about the appropriation of the value created (Mol 2005); however, the presence of a contractual mechanism in the form of a gainsharing scheme, as part of the client contract portfolio, is likely to increase transparency regarding commitment and profit sharing involved in such a setting.…”
Section: Discussion and Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This explanation is in line with the assertion that strategic and radical innovations are likely to be found in inter-organizational relationships and networks where firms seek access to resources and capabilities that cannot be found internally (Dewar and Dutton 1986;Henderson and Clark 1990), also known as complementary assets (Teece 1986). For example, inter-organizational networks can facilitate the development of the joint research capability required for strategic innovation, which is greater than the research capability that the client firm can develop on its own (Powell 1996;Hoecht and Trott 2006). A joint research capability may still lead to a continuous bargaining process between the client and supplier about the appropriation of the value created (Mol 2005); however, the presence of a contractual mechanism in the form of a gainsharing scheme, as part of the client contract portfolio, is likely to increase transparency regarding commitment and profit sharing involved in such a setting.…”
Section: Discussion and Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, additional alliances with the same partner may provide only redundant information and could result in inertia (Gulati, 1995). Hoecht and Trott (2006) go further by highlighting the risk of becoming dependent on a partner (e.g., hold up).…”
Section: Diversity Of Partnership Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2007) reported that the greater the uniqueness of the competence of a firm, the greater the stringent measures required to protect it. Trott (2006a and2006b) claimed that legal contracts may only offer shortterm protection to a firm's information and knowledge. Baccara (2007) stressed that close relationships with external contractors and service providers could result in unintentional information leakage.…”
Section: Ikl Through Interactions In Outsourcing Activitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Information/Knowledge leakage triggered by organisational incentives (Zhang, 2011;Anand and Goyal, 2009;Bonte and Wiethaus 2007;Harhoff et al, 2003;Lee, 2002) Information/Knowledge leakage triggered by individual incentives (Faisal et al, 2007) Information/Knowledge leakage through outsourcing/joint-venture/sub-contracting activities (Faisal et al, 2007;Hoecht and Trott, 2006a;Hoecht and Trott, 2006b) Information/Knowledge leakage arising from employee movement/people interaction (Mohamed et al, 2006;Kovach et al, 2004) From the literature, we identified that both academics and practitioners paid little attention to information and knowledge leakage management. IKL may represent a major loss to any firm if it is not managed properly.…”
Section: Findings Reported Bymentioning
confidence: 99%