Joining Forces or Going It Alone? On the Interplay among External Collaboration Partner Types, Interfirm Governance Modes, and Internal R&D

Abstract

This paper adds to the emerging literature stream advocating a contingency view on open innovation. Drawing on the relational view of the firm, this study sheds light on the complex interplay among collaboration partner types (market‐ and science‐focused innovation partners), governance modes (informal, self‐enforcing and formal, contractual collaboration governance), and internal research and development(R&D). More specifically, it is proposed that the use of governance modes tailored to both the characteristics of each innovation partner type and the specific innovation objectives pursued by the focal firm (incremental and radical new product development) can increase the payoff from innovation collaboration. Moreover, appropriate collaboration governance is expected to reduce the focal firm's vulnerability to possible negative side effects often assumed to be associated with the simultaneous pursuit of external collaboration and internal R&D, among which most notably the not‐invented‐here (NIH) syndrome. Cross‐industry evidence from 2502 German firms underlines the critical role of collaboration governance—a contingency factor that is at the heart of the relational view, yet has remained surprisingly absent from the open innovation debate so far.

Exploring the use of patents in a weak institutional environment: The effects of innovation partnerships, firm ownership, and new management practices

“…There is clear evidence that innovation partnerships have escalated since the 1980s, particularly in Europe, Asia, and North America (Gesing et al, 2015;Hagedoorn, 2002;Ma and Lee, 2008). Firms engage in collaboration to gain knowledge or specific resources needed to strengthen their competitive positions (Bekkers et al, 2002;Chesbrough, 2003;Giannopoulou et al, 2011;Hemmert et al, 2014).…”

“…In fact, firms engaged in such innovation-based collaboration have seen increases in both economic performance (Belderbos et al, 2004b) and innovative output (Sherwood and Covin, 2008;Tether, 2002;Zeng et al, 2010). Although the latter depends, for example, on partner firms' depth of knowledge, the nature of the partnership, and the level of the vertical integration of the focal firm Mention, 2011;Srivastava and Gnyawali, 2011), by partnering, firms enhance their ability to innovate and are thus more likely to patent (Galende, 2006;Gesing et al, 2015;Schilling and Phelps, 2007).…”

“…We concentrate on these factors for several reasons. First, innovation-based collaborations have become widespread (Gesing et al, 2015;Hagedoorn, 2002;Hemmert et al, 2014;Laursen and Salter, 2006), but to the best of our knowledge, only a few studies have sought to directly address the effects of partnerships on firms' propensities to patent (Blind et al, 2006;Brouwer and Kleinknecht, 1999). The influence of partnership on the propensity to patent is largely attributable to the increased likelihood of unintended knowledge spillovers.…”

Mapping the Impact of Social Media for Innovation: The Role of Social Media in Explaining Innovation Performance in the PDMA Comparative Performance Assessment Study

“…We found a consistent pattern in all models. To analyze the robustness of our results to the omission of specific control variables, we sequentially eliminated single control variables (Gesing, Antons, Piening, Rese, and Salge, ), which led to consistent results. A set of industry dummies was included to capture systematic differences in innovation success across the different groups.…”

Exploring the Motivational and Behavioral Foundations of External Technology Experts’ Knowledge Sharing in Collaborative R&D Projects: The Contingency Role of Project Formalization

“…However, empirical findings show mixed results with formalization both suppressing and promoting knowledge sharing (Walter, Walter, and Müller, ). In response, some scholars shifted attention to the contingency role of formalization in the collaboration (Gesing, Antons, Piening, Rese, and Salge, ; Wagner and Bode, ). Striving toward more detailed explanations, other scholars opened up the “black box” of collaborative R&D processes (Faems, Janssens, Madhok, and Van Looy, ).…”