Mission: Possible but Sensitive — Knowledge Protection Mechanisms Serving Different Purposes

Olander, Heidi; Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen, Pia; Vanhala, Mika

doi:10.1142/s136391961440012x

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our findings shine a new light on the findings of previous studies that both FAR and IAR are essential to capture the returns from R&D investments. Furthermore, previous studies have drawn a distinction between IAR, such as secrecy and lead time, and FAR, such as patents, by exploring the effects of different types of protection mechanisms on innovation performance [13,14]. They mainly focused on these issues from an efficiency perspective, such as limited complementary resources in SMEs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If SMEs establish a strong appropriability regime on their innovative inventions, it is relatively easy to protect and possess their innovative inventions, as well as the related knowledge [17]. SMEs, however, have the limitations of complementary competencies, such as resources and entry barriers for potential competitors, such that they are inherently different from large firms [13]. Therefore, SMEs' appropriability practices for innovative inventions remain a challenge for them and are crucial for achieving long-term sustainable survival.…”

Section: Appropriability Regime Of Smesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is difficult to reach general consensus on the impact of the appropriability regime because the effects of SMEs' appropriability regime and better practices are different depending on external factors, such as industries, legal system, intensity of cross border activities, etc. [13]. However, verification of the effect of the protection mechanisms depending on SMEs' organizational characteristics should not be overlooked to understand the appropriability regime from various perspectives [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

SME’s Appropriability Regime for Sustainable Development-the Role of Absorptive Capacity and Inventive Capacity

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SMEs need to protect their innovation outcomes and increase profits from their innovations in order to make their growth sustainable. The appropriability regime enables SMEs to secure financial returns on their R&D investment so that SMEs can continuously invest in innovation and obtain financial gains. However, the appropriability regime can change the effects of protecting innovation outcomes depending on the capacity of knowledge exploration, especially for SMEs, and previous studies have not discussed these issues. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to explore how the knowledge exploration capacity affects the relationship between different types of appropriability regimes and innovation performance. Multivariate regression is used to analyze the manufacturing SMEs sampled from the Korea Innovation Survey 2007 (KIS 2007). Our results demonstrate that both formal and informal appropriability regimes can improve firm's innovation performance. Furthermore, although both inventive and absorptive capacity have positive moderating effects on the relationship between the informal appropriability regime and innovation performance, the inventive capacity moderates negatively the relationship between the formal appropriability regime and innovation performance. As a whole, the significance of this paper lies in providing further understanding of the different types of appropriability regimes and knowledge exploration capacity in SMEs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Appropriability Regime Of Smesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

SME’s Appropriability Regime for Sustainable Development-the Role of Absorptive Capacity and Inventive Capacity

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Laursen and Salter (2005) showed that both, to a limited extent, are associated with innovation performance. However, Chang and Chen (2016) suggest that it is the use of informal tools, rather than formal tools, that determines whether firms are product innovators, whereas Olander et al (2014) found that formal appropriability mechanisms aid value capture (commercializing innovation), with informal tools having no impact. These contrasting findings of the effectiveness of formal and informal appropriability suggest that contingent factors, such as the type of firm, are at play.…”

Section: Conceptual Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appropriability mechanisms for manufacturing and service firms: the contingencies of openness and knowledge intensity

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conventional wisdom argues that appropriating returns from innovation requires protection mechanisms. However, there will be limits to the effectiveness of formal and informal appropriability mechanisms for innovation performance. Their effectiveness will be contingent on the nature of the knowledge that firms are trying to protect and the openness of their innovation strategy (sharing knowledge while attempting to protect knowledge is known as the 'paradox of openness'). Do these boundary conditions apply to both manufacturing and service firms equally though? Analyzing data from the UK Community Innovation Survey, this study provides evidence for a continuum-from discrete product manufacturing firms, whose products rely heavily on codified, explicit knowledge and for which formal methods are strongly associated with innovation performance, to knowledgeintensive service firms, which tend to rely more on complex tacit knowledge and for which innovation is linked to informal, not formal, appropriability. The findings show that the paradox of openness is a limited problem for service firms. The benefits of collaboration for innovation performance outweigh any reduction in the effectiveness of appropriability. For manufacturers, the benefits of collaboration disappear with high formal appropriability, and thus, discrete product manufacturers, contrary to conventional wisdom, may find it beneficial to reduce collaboration breadth and invest in informal appropriability mechanisms. Knowledge-intensive servitized manufacturers find formal methods effective but only with no or minimal collaboration.

show abstract

“…For example, partners might interpret the use of protective measures as a sign of selfinterest or distrust on the part of the partner. Considering that informal mechanisms are not as visible to alliance partners as formal ones, reliance on those mechanisms could help avoid some of those challenges (see Olander et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between trust and control in R&D alliances

Henttonen

Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen

Blomqvist

2019

VJIKMS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1Between trust and control in interorganizational collaboration -Rethinking formal and informal governance in R&D alliances Abstract Purpose: Trust and control through contracting have been juxtaposed in many studies addressing interorganizational collaboration and knowledge exchange. In this study, we move from the opposite ends of a continuum between trust as an attitude and control exercised through formal contracts toward the center of the continuum where trust and contracting start to show similar features. We ask how trust in its analytical form, and control gained through establishing informal protection for knowledge assets affect the innovation and market performance of firms engaged in R&D alliances.Design/methodology: We examine existing literature and conduct a quantitative empirical study to answer our research question. Findings:We find, first, that controlling an organization's own knowledge assets in R&D alliances with informal means of protection can be more effective than a strategy of controlling the alliance through formal contracts. Second, we find that an analytical audit of partner trustworthiness, and especially partner capabilities and goodwill, can be more effective than trust as an attitude.Implications: Our findings support softening the sharp distinction between trust and control and provide evidence on the relevance of highlighting the firm point of view in knowledge management in R&D alliance governance.Originality: Our study adds to the existing understanding of trust and control in R&D alliance governance. Specifically, we turn the focus from interorganizational governance to intra-2 organizational knowledge management measures, and particularly toward how a focal actor can take an analytical approach to evaluating partner trustworthiness and use informal control in protecting its own knowledge assets. Consequently, this study also provides a plausible explanation for the contradictory findings in studies that examine the relationship between trust and control. Our study indicates that depending on the specific nature of trust and control, they can be either a complement or a supplement factors: the extreme forms of trust and control are notably different from those forms that share similar features.

show abstract

Mission: Possible but Sensitive — Knowledge Protection Mechanisms Serving Different Purposes

Cited by 13 publications

References 46 publications

SME’s Appropriability Regime for Sustainable Development-the Role of Absorptive Capacity and Inventive Capacity

SME’s Appropriability Regime for Sustainable Development-the Role of Absorptive Capacity and Inventive Capacity

Appropriability mechanisms for manufacturing and service firms: the contingencies of openness and knowledge intensity

Between trust and control in R&D alliances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About