Trust relationships within R&amp;D networks: A case study from the biotechnological industry

Bien, Hsin-Ju; Ben, Tai-Ming; Wang, Kuan-Fei

doi:10.1080/14479338.2014.11081993

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We support that inter-organizational trust improves financial performance as the proxy of business performance. As expected, the finding of this study supports previous researchers, such as Fang et al (2008), Bien, Ben, and Wang (2014), Gaur et al (2011), Wei et al (2012, Shahmehr et al (2015), and Moeller (2009), i.e. that interorganizational trust enhanced financial performance.…”

Section: Structural Model Assessmentsupporting

confidence: 91%

Integrative trust and innovation on financial performance in disruptive era

Oláh¹,

Hidayat²,

Popp³

et al. 2021

Economics &Amp; Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is consistent with the idea that external authorities, such as institutions, may provide legal protection and an appropriate business climate as the requirements for collaborations (Goergen et al., 2013). As a consequence, performance of various institutions may promote trust in the institutions which they are connected to, to rebuild -or to weaken -interpersonal trust and trust in business partners (Brehm

show abstract

Section: Structural Model Assessmentsupporting

confidence: 91%

Integrative trust and innovation on financial performance in disruptive era

Oláh¹,

Hidayat²,

Popp³

et al. 2021

Economics &Amp; Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Formal governance mechanisms include contracts and JVs in which equity is shared between the partners (Bien et al . ; Contractor and Ra ; Phene and Tallman ). Joint ventures, for instance, promote knowledge sharing and close knowledge integration, while at the same time protecting core technologies from appropriation (Li et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Firms use different formal and informal governance mechanisms to deal with the paradoxical tensions of simultaneously co-creating and capturing value. Formal governance mechanisms include contracts and JVs in which equity is shared between the partners (Bien et al 2014;Contractor and Ra 2002;Phene and Tallman 2014). Joint ventures, for instance, promote knowledge sharing and close knowledge integration, while at the same time protecting core technologies from appropriation (Li et al 2008;Yang et al 2014).…”

Section: Governance Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embracing the Paradox of Interorganizational Value Co‐creation–Value Capture: A Literature Review towards Paradox Resolution

Niesten

Stefan

2019

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reviews literature on paradoxical tensions between value co‐creation and capture in interorganizational relationships (IORs). The purpose of this review is to make a re‐evaluation of the literature by engaging a paradox theory lens, thereby identifying factors that render tensions salient and factors that lead to virtuous or vicious cycles. This review of 143 articles reveals factors that make tensions salient: these relate to plurality (e.g. coopetition), scarcity (e.g. lack of experience with IORs), change (e.g. changes in collaboration scope) or combinations thereof (e.g. IORs in weak appropriability regimes). Results also uncover factors that resolve paradoxical tensions of value co‐creation and capture, thus spurring virtuous cycles (e.g. carefully mixing trust and contracts), as well as factors that promote vicious cycles, owing to the emphasis on either value co‐creation or capture (e.g. myopia of learning). This review further reveals a new category of factors that may stimulate either virtuous or vicious cycles, depending on the extent to which they are enforced. This finding expands the value co‐creation–capture paradox resolution and brings to light new dynamics in the paradox framework of dynamic equilibrium. This study thus contributes by: (1) reassessing the existing literature and applying paradox theory to the well‐known hazard of value co‐creation and capture; (2) highlighting factors that amplify paradoxical tensions related to this hazard; and (3) outlining factors that help solve the paradox by embracing its contradictory poles and factors that hinder paradox resolution by emphasizing either value co‐creation or appropriation.

show abstract

“…First, STIR has been used in countries which all belong to the 'innovation leader' or 'innovation follower' countries according to the European Innovation Scoreboard, while Hungary is a moderate innovator country (EC 2016). Second, since trust among partners is crucial concerning the performance of research and development (Bien et al 2014), the relatively low level of trust in each other amongst the Hungarian people may have huge impact on the success of STIR. 3 Third, Hungarian researchers and actors in the innovation process have minimal information on RRI in general (Lukovics et al 2016b), while in other countries -for instance -the official regulation on research and innovation pays attention to the criterion of responsibility.…”

Section: Stir Overview and Results In Developed Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socio-technical integration research in an Eastern European setting: Distinct features, challenges and opportunities

Lukovics

Fisher

2017

Soc Ec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While technological innovation is a core element of efforts to increase public welfare, innovators are rarely trained to take the societal dimensions of innovation into account in a systematic manner. Responsible innovation has emerged within policy discourses worldwide to address this challenge. Implementing responsible innovation in daily practices, however, requires addressing both the multidisciplinary and the culturally situated nature of innovation processes. Effectiveness of Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) has been tested, but primarily only in developed countries, raising questions about how well it works in innovation and cultural settings differing from Western cultures. Therefore, this study analyzes the possibities of institutionalizing responsible innovation in an Eastern European country, namely in Hungary. For this investigation, we conducted STIR-pilots in two Hungarian natural science research groups. The fi ndings show that though the original STIR method can be adapted to support responsible innovation practices in Hungary, the differences in the innovation environment and culture (such as grant-driven innovation; lack of trust; less knowledge on responsible innovation; lack of law on the societical impacts of research and innovaton) require methodological modifi cations in order to improve STIR's effectiveness.

show abstract

Trust relationships within R&D networks: A case study from the biotechnological industry

Cited by 15 publications

References 66 publications

Integrative trust and innovation on financial performance in disruptive era

Integrative trust and innovation on financial performance in disruptive era

Embracing the Paradox of Interorganizational Value Co‐creation–Value Capture: A Literature Review towards Paradox Resolution

Socio-technical integration research in an Eastern European setting: Distinct features, challenges and opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About