مفاهیم ارزشی و کارایی تحقیقات سرمایه گذاری مشترک: یک دیدگاه یادگیری سازمانی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|3958||2005||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 9945 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 16, Issue 2, December 2005, Pages 157–172
This paper focuses on a knowledge-based view to examine the relationship between the perceived value of a research joint venture (RJV) and its performance (expectation–result relation). Using data from 247 Europeans firms involved in RJVs we identify four groups of RJVs categorized by perceived value and performance of the RJV. The effect of the level of radicalness of research and the learning and knowledge management on this relationship was studied to provide insights into these relationships. Our findings suggest that the relationship between expected value and performance may not be a linear relationship. RJV's level of radicalness of research was found to be a major moderator of this relationship which is a slight adjustment to social cognitive theory's outcome expectations suppositions.
Historically, firms organized research and development (R&D) internally and relied on outside contract research only for relatively simple functions or products (Mowery, 1983 and Nelson, 1990). Currently, global competition, along with the growth of technological advances and product complexity requires that an organization possesses knowledge and skills in multiple intellectual fields that have to be upgraded constantly in order to meet changes in market conditions and customer expectations. Many companies cannot rely exclusively on their internal skills and knowledge in maintaining innovativeness and demand a range of intellectual and scientific skills that far exceed the capabilities of any single organization (@@George et al., 2001 and Iansiti and West, 1997). At the same time, communication, collaboration, and integration are required to maximize the synergy between the various interdependent parts (@@Hitt et al., 1993 and Moenaert and Souder, 1990). This situation has made companies explore innovative ways that embrace and integrate external knowledge in conjunction with internal R&D. In recent decades, there has been unprecedented growth in Research Joint Ventures (RJVs) in order to expand firms' knowledge bases and develop new skills. An RJV is a collaborative agreement in which two or more partner organizations decide to coordinate their R&D activities through a cooperative project and to share the knowledge generated from this joint effort. Drucker (1995) has stated that the greatest change in the conduct of business is the accelerating growth of relationships based not on ownership but on partnership. The increasing importance of RJVs has resulted in growing interest in theorizing on potential causes and consequences. As technology management has become ingrained within the field of knowledge management, so to have RJVs has been viewed and studied from this broader knowledge management perspective. In this context, the emergence of resource-based theoretic approaches – especially those emphasizing the role of knowledge – has provided a broader basis upon which to build a theory of inter-firm cooperation (Grant & Baden-Fuller, 2004). It is generally presumed that research partnerships result in positive outcomes for member firms and that the long-term success of this strategy depends on the appropriate integration of knowledge and learning developed during the R&D process. In light of the importance of this association it is surprising to find relatively few empirical investigations focusing on how knowledge management and learning are integrated and related to the performance of these research partnerships (Luukkonen, 1998 and Sakakibara, 1997). In this paper, using underlying theoretical foundations from the knowledge base view of firm as our underpinning, we empirically explore the factors that determinate, or moderate, the relation between the perceived value of the RJV and its performance (expectation–result relation). In order to do this, we first study the existing relation between performance and the perceived value of the RJV. Secondly, the effects of the level of radicalness of the R&D project and the learning and knowledge management on this relationship between perceived value and performance results are investigated. The empirical analysis is based on data collected from 247 Europeans firms involved in RJVs. In doing so, we offer three main contributions to the literature of RJVs. First, we suggest and find that the relationship between expected value and performance may not be a linear relationship, and moderate social cognitive theory's outcome expectations suppositions. Second, RJV's level of radicalness of research is found to be a major moderator of this relationship. Thus, without previous knowledge related to the R&D project, firms show more difficulties in correctly valuing benefits of the RJVs. And third, we establish that the adoption of learning and knowledge management practices that include close interaction through joint research tasks and encouraging more informal communications among partners may all help in improving the expectation–result relation.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In this paper, we proposed an examination of the factors that determine the relationship between the perceived value of RJV and its RJV performance. Using data collected from a variety of European based RJVs, social cognitive theory's outcome expectations considerations, and perceived values expectations with performance results using fulfilled expectations, we evaluated two theorized relationships. We hypothesized that the relationships between perceived value and performance of RJV depends on (1) the level of radicalness of the R&D project, and (2) learning and knowledge management. Four groupings (clusters) were found based on multiple correspondence analysis (MCA). Those with high perceived value/high performance, those with low perceived values/low performance and those with moderate perceived value/moderate performance. This last grouping was further sub-divided into two groups, one with lower performance than the other, to glean additional relationship information. The extreme clusters were first evaluated to determine if there were any differences and some were found to support the hypotheses. Similar findings supported the stated hypotheses for the analysis from the more closely aligned clusters (i.e., groups C1 and C2). We also found that the relationships between expected value and performance may not be a linear relationship. It seems that the level of performance is accentuated (either negatively or positively) depending on the initial perceptions of the value of the project to the organization. It is difficult to fully determine, at this stage and with the information we have, whether these relationships are causal, whether lower value expectations lead to even lower performance results and whether higher value expectations lead to higher than expected performance results. Some results of this work support the social cognitive theory of expectation that organizations with higher expectations tended to have higher performance perceptions, and thus support social cognitive theory's outcome expectations suppositions, but for some of the RJVs there exists a moderated relationship. RJV's level of radicalness of the R&D project was found to be a major determinant, or moderator, of this relation. Those organizations that are more oriented towards building on current research, exploitative, less radical RJVs, tended to have higher expectations and higher performance fulfillment. Thus, without previous knowledge related to the R&D project, firms show more difficulties in correctly valuing benefits of the RJVs, with lower performance as a likely outcome. As we said above, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) express this idea in terms of ability “absorptive capacity” which expresses the firm's ability to assimilate new knowledge and make use of the benefits of joint research. In discussing how it contributes to innovation, they argue that absorptive capacity tends to develop cumulatively and builds on prior related knowledge. Organizations that possess relevant prior knowledge are likely to have a better understanding of the new knowledge, can generate new ideas and develop new products. Organizations with a high level of absorptive capacity are likely to harness new knowledge from an RJV to help their innovative activities. This research suggests that investments in absorptive capacity allows a firm to better value the RJV knowledge and effectively assimilate and apply RJV knowledge for its own use. This research also identifies several knowledge management practices that RJVs use to create and transfer knowledge and moderate the relationship between expectations and performance. Practically, adopting learning and knowledge management practices that include close interaction through joint research tasks and encouraging more informal communications among partners may all help in improving research performance in RJVs as evidenced by the results. There are other possible configurations of RJVs, but four combinations which make up the perceived value–performance relation (expectation–result relation) appear to display internal consistency. Each group appears to reinforce a level of radicalness of the R&D project and provide different approaches to the learning and knowledge management. Generalizations of these findings to other scenarios must be made cautiously. Replications of this study with different samples stand to improve our understanding of the underlying research model. As with any exploratory research, this investigation is subject to a number of limitations. Perhaps the most significant is the data employed. There is still difficulty in measuring long term and qualitative performance measures. For example, improving “acquisition and creation of new knowledge” or “technological learning” is an efficiency measure that cannot be easily determined, nor measured, but clearly is something of great importance to RJVs. In addition, like most social science models, our framework excludes some potentially important factors in the RJV expectation–results relation. A number of internal and external issues such as cultural differences between the partners, differences in their products and nature of work, or some unexpected development such as reorganizations, mergers and acquisitions, and economic downturns, may all impact the cooperative relationships. To prevent the analysis from becoming overwhelmingly complex, we did not include these factors. However, evaluating and relating these issues with performance is another direction to pursue. Generalizations to other countries and types cannot necessarily be made without further investigation. Another limitation comes from single informants used as a source of information. Although the use of these single informants remains the primary research design in most studies, multiple informants and obtaining objective data – especially outcome measures – would enhance the validity of the research findings. In terms of other future studies and applications, we can focus on the evaluation and use of multiple performance measures through various techniques. Also, determination of which factors contribute most to explaining performance and the relationships to performance can be studied. A causal relationship between expectations and performances also needs to be further investigated.