Cooperative Strategies in the Age of Open Innovation: Choice of Partners, Geography and Duration

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

In the era of “open innovation”, the choice of a cooperative strategy is one of the most significant factors determining the effectiveness of innovation activities. The authors investigate the typical configurations of cooperative networks in Russian manufacturing, including the choice of partners, the role of spatial distance, and the duration of joint projects. Using the firm-level data (1,324 in 2015 and 545 in 2018) the paper evaluates the role of cooperation in the innovation outcomes in terms of innovation novelty and export capacity.The most common cooperative strategy is vertical cooperation, which is the involvement of clients and suppliers in the process of innovative development. The geography of cooperation rarely extends beyond a region's borders and is mostly of an irregular (short-term) nature. A small number of enterprises that engage in international cooperation tend to rely upon long-term linkages with academia, which is a distinctive feature of the most innovative Russian companies, including those involved in the creation and distribution of intellectual property.

About the authors

Valeriya Vlasova

HSE University

Email: vvvlasova@hse.ru

Vitaliy Roud

HSE University

Email: vroud@hse.ru

References

  1. Arranz N., de Arroyabe J.C.F. (2008) The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: An empirical analysis of Spanish firms // Technovation. Vol. 28. № 1-2. Р. 88-100. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.006
  2. Aschhoff B., Schmidt T. (2008) Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation - happy together? // Review of Industrial Organization. Vol. 33. № 1. P. 41-62. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-008-9179-7
  3. Balland P.A., Boschma R., Crespo J., Rigby D.L. (2019) Smart specialization policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification // Regional Studies. Vol. 53. № 9. P. 1252-1268. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1437900
  4. Barney J.B. (2001) Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view // Journal of Management. Vol. 27. № 6. Р. 643-650. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602
  5. Becker W., Dietz J. (2004) R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms - evidence for the German manufacturing industry // Research Policy. Vol. 33. № 2. Р. 209-223. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.003
  6. Belderbos R., Carree M., Diederen B., Lokshin B., Veugelers R. (2004) Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies // International Journal of Industrial Organization. Vol. 22. № 8-9. Р. 1237-1263. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2004.08.001
  7. Belderbos R., Carree M., Lokshin B. (2004) Cooperative R&D and firm performance // Research Рolicy. Vol. 33. № 10. Р. 1477-1492. DOI:https://doi.org/10.26481/umamet.2004020
  8. Bessonova E., Gonchar K. (2019) How the innovation-competition link is shaped by technology distance in a high-barrier catch-up economy // Technovation. Vol. 86. P. 15-32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.01.002
  9. Boschma R. (2005) Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment // Regional Studies. Vol. 39. № 1. P. 61-74. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
  10. Breschi S., Malerba F., Orsenigo L. (2000) Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation // Economic Journal. Vol. 110. № 463. P. 388-410. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00530
  11. Caloghirou Y., Kastelli I., Tsakanikas A. (2004) Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? // Technovation. Vol. 24. № 1. P. 29-39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-005-1005-z
  12. Carlsson S., Corvello V., Schroll A., Mild A. (2011) Open innovation modes and the role of internal R&D // European Journal of Innovation Management. Vol. 14. № 4. P. 475-495. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061111174925
  13. Castellacci F. (2008) Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation // Research Policy. Vol. 37. № 6-7. P. 978-994. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.03.011
  14. Chesbrough H. (2012) Open innovation: Where we've been and where we're going // Research-Technology Management. Vol. 55. № 4. P. 20-27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308x5504085
  15. Chesbrough H.W. (2003) Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
  16. Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A. (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation // Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 35. № 1. P. 128-152. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
  17. Dachs B., Ebersberger B., Pyka A. (2008) Why do firms cooperate for innovation? A comparison of Austrian and Finnish CIS3 results // International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy. Vol. 4. № 3-4. P. 200-229. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1504/ijfip.2008.017577
  18. Dahlander L., Gann D.M. (2010) How open is innovation? // Research Policy. Vol. 39. № 6. P. 699-709. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013
  19. De Faria P., Lima F., Santos R. (2010) Cooperation in innovation activities: The importance of partners // Research Policy. Vol. 39. № 8. P. 1082-1092. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.003
  20. Edquist C. (2011) Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures) // Industrial and Corporate Change. Vol. 20. № 6. P. 1725-1753. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr060
  21. Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R. (eds.) (2005) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.001.0001
  22. Freeman C. (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
  23. Fritsch M., Lukas R. (2001) Who cooperates on R&D? // Research Policy. Vol. 30. № 2. P. 297-312. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00115-8
  24. Godin B. (2006) The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework // Science, Technology and Human Values. Vol. 31. № 6. P. 639-667. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906291865
  25. Godin B. (2008) Innovation: The history of a category. Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper № 1. Quebec: Institut national de la recherche scientifique.
  26. Gokhberg L., Kuznetsova T. (2015) Russian Federation // UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030 / Ed. S. Schneegans. Paris: UNESCO. P. 343-363.
  27. Greco M., Grimaldi M., Cricelli L. (2016) An analysis of the open innovation effect on firm performance // European Management Journal. Vol. 34. № 5. P. 501-516. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.008
  28. Hayter C.S., Nelson A.J., Zayed S., O'Connor A.C. (2018) Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature // Journal of Technology Transfer. Vol. 43. № 4. P. 1039-1082. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3137406
  29. Humphrey J., Schmitz H. (2002) How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters? // Regional Studies. Vol. 36. № 9. P. 1017-1027. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340022000022198
  30. Kaufmann A., Todtling F. (2001) Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems // Research Policy. Vol. 30. № 5. P. 791-804. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00118-9
  31. Kim Y., Vonortas N.S. (2014) Cooperation in the formative years: Evidence from small enterprises in Europe // European Management Journal. Vol. 32. № 5. P. 795-805. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.02.003
  32. Kline S., Rosenberg N. (1986) The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.DOI:https://doi.org/10.17226/612.
  33. Kratzer J., Meissner D., Roud, V. (2017) Open innovation and company culture: Internal openness makes the difference // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 119. P. 128-138. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.022
  34. Laursen K., Salter A. (2006) Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms // Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 27. № 2. P. 131-150. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
  35. Lee K. (2020) Openness and innovation in online higher education: A historical review of the two discourses // Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. P. 1-21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1713737
  36. Leydesdorff L., Rotolo D., de Nooy W. (2013) Innovation as a nonlinear process, the scientometric perspective, and the specification of an ‘innovation opportunities explorer // Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. Vol. 25. № 6. P. 641-653. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.801948
  37. Lhuillery S., Pfister E. (2009) R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data // Research Policy. Vol. 38. № 1. P. 45-57. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.09.002
  38. Lundvall B.A. (1992) National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
  39. Nambisan S., Wright M., Feldman M. (2019) The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes // Research Policy. Vol. 48. № 8. P. 1-9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018
  40. Nelson R. (ed.) (1993) National Innovation Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
  41. Nieto M.J., Santamaria L. (2007) The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation // Technovation. Vol. 27. № 6-7. P. 367-377. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.10.001
  42. OECD (2015) The future of productivity. Joint Economics Department and the Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Note. Paris: OECD. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264248533-en
  43. OECD, Eurostat (2018) Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation (4th ed.). Paris: OECD. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1787/24132764
  44. Perkmann M., Walsh K. (2007) University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda // International Journal of Management Reviews. Vol. 9. № 4. P. 259-280. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x
  45. Plewa C., Korff N., Baaken T., Macpherson G. (2013) University-industry linkage evolution: An empirical investigation of relational success factors // R&D Management. Vol. 43. № 4. P. 365-380. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12021
  46. Rosenbloom R.S., Spencer W.J. (1996) The transformation of industrial research // Issues in Science and Technology. Vol. 12. № 3. P. 68-74.
  47. Roud V., Vlasova V. (2020) Strategies of industry-science cooperation in the Russian manufacturing sector // Journal of Technology Transfer. Vol. 45. № 3. P. 870-907. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9703-3
  48. Srholec M. (2015) Understanding the diversity of cooperation on innovation across countries: Multilevel evidence from Europe // Economics of Innovation and New Technology. Vol. 24. № 1-2. P. 159-182. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2014.897864
  49. Teece D.J. (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance // Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 28. № 13. P. 1319-1350. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  50. Tether B.S. (2002) Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis // Research Policy. Vol. 31. № 6. P. 947-967. DOI: 0.1016/S0048-7333(01)00172-X.
  51. Torre A. (2008) On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission // Regional Studies. Vol. 42. № 6. P. 869-889. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400801922814
  52. Van Beers C., Zand F. (2014) R&D cooperation, partner diversity, and innovation performance: An empirical analysis // Journal of Product Innovation Management. Vol. 31. № 2. P. 292-312. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12096
  53. Wang C.H., Chang C.H., Shen G.C. (2015) The effect of inbound open innovation on firm performance: Evidence from high-tech industry // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 99. P. 222-230. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.006
  54. Wernerfelt B. (1984) A resource-based view of the firm // Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 5. № 2. P. 171-180. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
  55. Yakovlev A. (2014) Russian modernization: Between the need for new players and the fear of losing control of rent sources // Journal of Eurasian Studies. Vol. 5. № 1. P. 10-20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2013.09.004
  56. Быкова А.А., Молодчик М.А. (2009) Практики открытых инноваций в России: эмпирическое исследование инновационного поведения предприятий Пермского края // Корпоративные финансы. Т. 3. № 3. C. 77-93. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.3.3.2009.77-93
  57. Дежина И., Медовников Д., Розмирович С. (2018) Оценки спроса российского среднего технологического бизнеса на сотрудничество с вузами // Журнал новой экономической ассоциации. Т. 4. № 36. С. 81-105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2017-36-4-4
  58. Кузнецова Т.Е., Рудь В.А. (2013) Конкуренция, инновации и стратегии развития российских предприятий (результаты эмпирических исследований) // Вопросы экономики. № 12. С. 86-108. DOI:https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2013-12-86-108
  59. НИУ ВШЭ (2019) Индикаторы инновационной деятельности: 2019. Статистический сборник. М.: НИУ ВШЭ.
  60. Рудь В., Фурсов К. (2011) Роль статистики в дискуссии о научно-технологическом и инновационном развитии // Вопросы экономики. № 1. С. 138-150. DOI:https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2011-1-138-150
  61. Симачев Ю.В., Кузык М.Г., Фейгина В.В. (2014) Взаимодействие российских компаний и исследовательских организаций в проведении НИОКР: третий не лишний? // Вопросы экономики. № 7. С. 4-34. DOI:https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2014-7-4-34
  62. Теплых Г.В. (2015) Драйверы инновационной активности промышленных компаний в России // Прикладная эконометрика. № 2 (38). С. 83-110.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).