How companies without the benefit of authority create innovation through collaboration

To create new business firms develop and provide systems that are new to the market.\ud However, if a firm wants to achieve this goal but does not possess all required resources\ud and capabilities, it needs cooperation from other organizations. This study focuses\ud on how firms that lack authority to compel such cooperation, gain and foster\ud commitment from other organizations to cooperate. To develop a model that addresses\ud this question two cases of interorganizational innovation from the Dutch construction\ud industry were studied. In both cases an organization set up and coordinated a\ud network of organizations to jointly develop and market a new system. The cases suggest\ud that, in particular, three types of activities of such leading organizations affect\ud other organizations' commitment to cooperate. These include two types of activities\ud that correspond with two extensively researched constructs, champion behavior and\ud supportive leadership, and one type of activity whose influence is more indirect, value\ud proposition management. Overall, both cases can be regarded as examples of innovation\ud and value chain integration, two issues identified as industry deficiencies in various\ud countries

Innovation and interorganizational cooperation: a synthesis of literature

Purpose – In construction, literature interorganizational cooperation is argued to be an important\ud aspect of construction innovation. From this perspective, several distinct bodies of literature provide\ud relevant insights. In literature on complex product systems (CoPS), it is argued that construction\ud industry is a CoPS industry and that in CoPS industries systems integrators set-up and coordinate\ud interorganizational innovation. Furthermore, various bodies of literature provide information about\ud factors that affect the success of innovation and interorganizational cooperation. The purpose of this\ud paper is to integrate the findings from these bodies of literature.\ud Design/methodology/approach – To uncover the present state of knowledge about systems\ud integrators, a comprehensive literature review is conducted. Furthermore, the paper analyzes various\ud fields of literature to derive an overview of factors which have been empirically related to the success\ud of innovation and interorganizational cooperation.\ud Findings – First, this paper structures the current knowledge on the role and characteristics of\ud systems integrators. Subsequently, the paper translates this knowledge to the context of construction\ud industry and discusses the basis for classifying a firm as a systems integrator in construction\ud industry. Furthermore, the paper presents a list of relevant success factors derived from literature on\ud new product development, strategic networks and alliances, open innovation, and construction\ud innovation.\ud Originality/value – By integrating various bodies of literature, this paper provides a solid base for\ud future theory development on how firms achieve interorganizational innovation in construction\ud industry

Together on the path to construction innovation: yet another example of escalation of commitment?

Collaborative innovation projects are projects in which firms join forces to cooperate in the development and commercialization of a new building product, system, or service. They represent an example of the type of inter-firm relationships that are said to enhance construction innovation. Organizational behaviour research, however, suggests that firms participating in such innovation projects run the risk of escalating commitment and may continue to invest for irrational reasons. It is therefore relevant to examine whether Dutch firms that invest, in collaboration with other firms, in the development and commercialization of a new building product, system, or service are susceptible to this escalation. Two escalation effects were investigated: the effect of expected loss of sunk costs, and the effect of perceived project stage. A survey was undertaken of 154 firms participating in 25 collaborative innovation projects. The results suggest that firms in the population under study are unlikely to fall victim to either of the two escalation effects. Rather, the negative association found between the expected loss of sunk costs and likelihood of continuing investment raises the question as to whether firms become more cautious when they have spent a lot

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2: 1). Results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding