When local interaction does not suffice: Sources of firm innovation in urban Norway

The geographical sources of innovation of firms have been hotly debated. While the traditional view is that physical proximity within city-regions is key for the innovative capacity of firms, the literature on 'global pipelines' has been stressing the importance of establishing communication channels to the outside world. This paper uses a specifically tailored survey of the level of innovation of 1604 firms of more than 10 employees located in the five largest Norwegian city-regions (Oslo, Bergen, Stavanger, Trondheim, and Kristiansand) in order to determine a) the geographical dimension of the sources of innovation and b) the factors behind the propensity to innovate in Norwegian firms. The results stress that while interaction with a multitude of partners within Norwegian city-regions or with other national partners has a negligible effect on firm innovation, those firms with a greater diversity of international partners tend to innovate more and introduce more radical innovations. The results also highlight that the roots of this greater innovative capacity lie in a combination of firm – size of firms, share of foreign ownership, and sector – and cultural – the level of open-mindedness of managers – characteristics.Innovation; radical innovation; interaction; pipelines; partnerships; firms; city-regions; Norway

A Proposal for Supply Chain Management Research That Matters: Sixteen High Priority Research Projects for the Future

On May 4th, 2016 in Milton, Ontario, the World Class Supply Chain 2016 Summit was held in partnership between CN Rail and Wilfrid Laurier University’s Lazaridis School of Business & Economics to realize an ambitious goal: raise knowledge of contemporary supply chain management (SCM) issues through genuine peer-­‐to-­‐peer dialogue among practitioners and scholars. A principal element of that knowledge is an answer to the question: to gain valid and reliable insights for attaining SCM excellence, what issues must be researched further? This White Paper—which is the second of the summit’s two White Papers—addresses the question by proposing a research agenda comprising 16 research projects. This research agenda covers the following: The current state of research knowledge on issues that are of the highest priority to today’s SCM professionals Important gaps in current research knowledge and, consequently, the major questions that should be answered in sixteen future research projects aimed at addressing those gaps Ways in which the research projects can be incorporated into student training and be supported by Canada’s major research funding agencies That content comes from using the summit’s deliberations to guide systematic reviews of both the SCM research literature and Canadian institutional mechanisms that are geared towards building knowledge through research. The major conclusions from those reviews can be summarized as follows: While the research literature to date has yielded useful insights to inform the pursuit of SCM excellence, several research questions of immense practical importance remain unanswered or, at best, inadequately answered The body of research required to answer those questions will have to focus on what the summit’s first White Paper presented as four highly impactful levers that SCM executives must expertly handle to attain excellence: collaboration; information; technology; and talent The proposed research agenda can be pursued in ways that achieve the two inter-­‐related goals of creating new actionable knowledge and building the capacity of today’s students to become tomorrow’s practitioners and contributors to ongoing knowledge growth in the SCM field This White Paper’s details underlying these conclusions build on the information presented in the summit’s first White Paper. That is, while the first White Paper (White Paper 1) identified general SCM themes for which the research needs are most urgent, this White Paper goes further along the path of industry-academia knowledge co-creation. It does so by examining and articulating those needs against the backdrop of available research findings, translating the needs into specific research projects that should be pursued, and providing guidelines for how those projects can be carried out

Bringing tasks back in: an organizational theory of resource complementarity and partner selection

To progress beyond the idea that the value of inter-firm collaboration is largely determined by the complementarity of the resources held by partners, we build a theoretical framework that explains under which conditions a set of resources or capabilities can be considered as complementary and resulting in superior value creation. Specifically, we argue that the tasks that an inter-firm collaboration has to perform determine complementarities, and that complementarities arise from similar and dissimilar resources alike. We capture this relationship in the concept of task resource complementarity. Further, we examine factors that impact on the relevance of this construct as a predictor of partner selection. Finally, we discuss which implications arise for a theory of the firm when tasks are explicitly incorporated into the conceptualization of resource complementarity

Persistence of, and interrelation between, horizontal and vertical technology alliances.

The authors explore to what extent there is persistence in, and interrelation between, alliance strategies with different partner types (customers, suppliers, competitors). In a panel data set of innovation-active firms in the Netherlands from 1996 to 2004, the authors find persistence in alliance strategies with all three types of partners, but customer alliance strategies are more persistent than supplier alliance strategies and competitor alliance strategies. A positive interrelation between customer and supplier alliance strategies and a high persistence of joint supplier and customer alliance strategies are consistent with the advantages of value chain integration in innovation efforts. Prior engagement in horizontal (competitor) alliances increases the propensity to engage in vertical alliance strategies, but this effect occurs only with a longer lag. Overall, the authors’ findings suggest that alliance strategies with different partner types are both heterogeneous in persistence and (temporally) interrelated. This suggests that intertemporal relationships between different types of alliances may be as important as their simultaneous relationship in alliance portfolios.

Conceptualizing the Role of Geographical Proximity in Project Based R&D Networks: A Literature Survey

Empirical evidence shows that research is being carried out more in cooperation or in collaboration with others, and the networks described by these collaborative research activities are becoming more and more complex. This phenomenon brings about new strands of research questions and opens up a different research context in the area of geography of innovation. The recent set of literature addressing these new issues shows a high degree of variation in terms of focus, approaches and methodology. Hence to elucidate the relationship between networks and geography it is crucial to have a review them. In this regard, this study focuses on a particular type of networks, namely, project based R&D networks and aims at describing the state-of-the-art in explaining the specificity of geography in formation and evolution of such networks. Towards this aim, we framed the discussion along four lenses: the specificity of geography in partner choice, in successful execution of the collaboration, in the resulting innovation performance both at the organizational and regional level, and the spatio-temporal evolution of networks. The overview provided by the survey is suggestive regarding the theorization of geography and network relationship, and informative regarding the issues demanding further research effort, and promising extensions.

Persistence of and interrelation between horizontal and vertical technology alliances

We examine how and to what extent the propensity to be engaged in alliances with different partner types (suppliers, customers and competitors) depends on prior alliance engagement with partner firms of the same type (persistence) and prior engagement in alliances with the other partner types (interrelation). We derive hypotheses from a combined competence and governance view of collaboration, and test these on an extensive panel dataset of innovation-active Dutch firms during 1996-2004. We find persistence in alliance engagement of all three types of partners, but customer alliances are more persistent than supplier alliances. Most persistent are joint supplier and customer alliances, which we attribute to the advantages of value chain integration in innovation processes. Positive interrelation also exists in vertical alliances, as immediate past customer alliances increase the propensity to engage in supplier alliances and vice versa. On the other hand, while prior engagement in horizontal (competitor) alliances increases the propensity to engage in vertical alliances, this effect only occurs with a longer lag. Overall, our findings are highly supportive of the idea that alliance engagement with different partner types is heterogeneous but interrelated. Our analysis suggests that the inter-temporal relationship between different types of alliances may be as important as their simultaneous relationship in alliance portfolios.R&D collaboration, technological partnerships, innovation, path dependency

On the Determinants of the Reach of Innovation-related Collaboration in Small Firms

This paper takes as its starting point an item of relatively recent academic orthodoxy: the insistence that ‘…interactive learning and collective entrepreneurship are fundamental to the process of innovation’ (Lundvall, 1992, p. 9). From this, academics have frequently taken “interactive” to imply “inter-organisational” and, whilst one might be concerned by this too casual conflation, there is a growing consensus that firms’ embeddedness in collaborative networks matters for their innovative performance (Gilsing et al., 2008).