Fostering R&D Collaboration — The Interplay of Trust, Appropriability and Absorptive Capacity

  • Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen
  • Kirsimarja Blomqvist
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 243)


Value creation in the present day markets demands new kind of managerial logic. One manifestation of this can be seen in relation to R&D collaboration: while importance of external knowledge and networks of relationships is undoubtedly increasing as a source of competitive advantage, collaborations still frequently fail. In order to avoid this, companies need to find ways to manage factors that have an effect not only on the outcomes of collaboration but on each other as well Such important factors include trusting relationships, creating security through means such as contracts and intellectual property rights, and capabilities to absorb relevant knowledge. In this study we will examine these factors and their roles for R&D collaboration among 299 Finnish companies. Our results suggest that these factors are intertwined and that they are closely related to willingness to engage into R&D collaboration and the final outcomes.


Intellectual Property Knowledge Sharing Absorptive Capacity Strategic Alliance External Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Armstrong SJ, Ovcrton TS. Estimating non-response in mailed surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 1977; 18: 263–264.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arrow K. “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention”. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, R. Nelson, ed. New York: Princeton University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baughn CC, Stevens JH, Dcnckamp JG, Osborn RN. Protecting intellectual capital in international alliances. Journal of World Business 1997; 32, 2: 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blomqvist K. Partnering in the dynamic environment: The role of trust in asymmetric technology partnership formation. Doctoral thesis, Acta Univcrsitatis Lappeenrantaensis 122, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blomqvist K. “Trust in a Dynamic Environment -Fast Trust as a Threshold Condition for Asymmetric Technology Partnership Formation in the ICT Sector”. In Trust in Pressure, Investigations of Trust and Trust Building in Uncertain Circumstances, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blomqvist K, Hurmelinna P, Seppänen R. Playing the Collaboration Game Right -Balancing Trust and Contracting. Technovation 2005; 25, 5: 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blomqvist K, Levy J. Collaboration Capability -A Focal Concept in Collaborative Knowledge Creation and Innovation in Networks. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy 2006; 2, 1: 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bönte W, Keilbach M. Concubinage or marriage? Informal and formal cooperations for innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization 2005; 23: 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chcsbrough H. The Logic of Open Innovation: Managing Intellectual Property. California Management Review 2003; 45, 3: 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990; 35, 1: 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dyer JH, Singh H. The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Intcrorganizational Competitive Advantage. The Academy of Management Review 1998; 23, 4: 660–679.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forrest JE., Martin M.JC. Strategic Alliances between large and Small Research IntcnsivcOrganizations: Experiences in the Biotechnology Industry. R&D Management 1992; 22, 1; 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gulati R, Nohria N, Zahccr A. Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal 2000; 21, 3: 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heiman BA, Nickcrson JA. Empirical evidence regarding the tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaborations. Managerial and Decision Economics 2004; 25: 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heimeriks K. Alliance capability, collaboration quality, and alliance performance: an integrated framework, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Working Paper 02.05, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Helm R, Kloycr, M. Controlling contractual exchange risks in R&D intcrfirm cooperation: an empirical study. Research Policy 2004; 33: 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffmann WH, Schlosscr R. Success Factors of Strategic Alliances in Small and Medium-sized Entcpriscs -An Empirical Survey. Long Range Planning 2001; 24: 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hurmelinna-Laukkancn P, Puumalaincn K. The nature and dynamics of appropriability -Strategics for appropriating returns on innovation. R & D Management 2007; 37, 2: 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ireland RD, Hitt MA, Vaidyanath D. Alliance Management as a Source of Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 2002; 28: 413–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kale P, Dyer JH, Singh H. Alliance Capability, Stock Market Response, and Long-Term Alliance Success: The Role of the Alliance Function. Strategic Management Journal 2002; 23,8: 747–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuivalainen O, Kyläheiko K, Puumalainen K, Saarenketo, S. “Knowledge-based view on internationalization: Finnish telecom software suppliers as an example”. In Management of Technology: Growth through Business, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, M. Von Zedtwitz, G. Haour, T. Khalil, L. Lefebvre, Eds., Oxford: Pergamon Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miles R, Snow C, Miles G. Collaborative entrepreneurship. How groups of networked firms use continuous innovation to create economic wealth? Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mohr J, Spekman R Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behaviour, and Conflict Resolution Techniques. Strategic Management Journal 1994; 15: 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Möllering G. “Trust, institutions, agency: towards a neoinstitutional theory of trust”. In Handbook of Trust Research, R. Bachmann, A. Zaheer, eds. 2006.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nelson, RR The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy 1959; 67: 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norman, P. Protecting knowledge in strategic alliances. Resource and relational characteristics. Journal of High Technology Management Research 2002; 13: 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    OECD. Oslo Manual -proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. Paris, OECD, 1997.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pisano G. Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research Policy 2006; 35,8: 1110–1121.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Palmberg C. The many faces of absorptive capacity in low-tech industries -The case of glue-lam timber and foodstuffs. The DRUID summer conference, 6–8 June, Copenhagen, 2002.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tsoukas H. The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal 1996; 17: 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tu Q, Vonderembse MA, Ragu-Nathan TS, Sharkey TW. Absorptive capacity: Enhancing the assimilation of time-based manufacturing practices. Journal of Operations Management 2006; 24: 692–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tyler B. The Complementarity of Cooperative and Technological Competencies. A Resourcebased Perspective. Journal of English Technology Management 2001; 18: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stuart T. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal 2000; 21: 791 -811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Dijk M. Technological regimes and industrial dynamics: The evidence from Dutch manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change 2000; 9, 2: 173–194.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Willman P. Playing the long game; Reaping the benefits of technological change. Business Strategy Review 1992; 3, 1: 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Winter S. The logic of appropriability: From Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece. Research Policy 2006; 35, 8: 1100–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yli-Renko H, Sapienza H, Hay M. The role of contractual governance flexibility in realizing the outcomes of key customer relationships. Journal of Business Venturing 2001; 16: 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zahra SA, George G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review 2007; 27, 2: 185–203.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kirsimarja Blomqvist
    • 1
  1. 1.School of BusinessLappeenranta University of TechnologyFinland
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations