IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v88y2019ics0166497217302626.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research and development resources, coopetitive performance and cooperation: The case of standardization in 3GPP, 2004–2013

Author

Listed:
  • Johansson, Magnus
  • Kärreman, Matts
  • Foukaki, Amalia

Abstract

This study examines the interdependence between research and development (R&D) resources, coopetitive performance, and extent of cooperation in development-related standardization settings that involve network effects. Coopetitive performance is measured as the firm's influence on the change process of standards. Cooperation is measured as the number of firm technology partners in influencing industry technology standards. From a dataset of 152,959 decisions drawn from the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) change request (CR) database for the period 2004–2013, firm influence on the standardization change process is studied by identifying firm involvement in CR decisions. The study supports the hypothesis that R&D resources are associated with coopetitive performance in innovation-related coopetitive settings with network effects. In addition, for firms that have a stronger dependence on the output of cooperative industry technology development, R&D resources are associated with fewer partners when trying to influence industry technology standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Johansson, Magnus & Kärreman, Matts & Foukaki, Amalia, 2019. "Research and development resources, coopetitive performance and cooperation: The case of standardization in 3GPP, 2004–2013," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0166497217302626
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2019.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497217302626
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.04.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Teppo Felin & Nicolai J. Foss & Koen H. Heimeriks & Tammy L. Madsen, 2012. "Microfoundations of Routines and Capabilities: Individuals, Processes, and Structure," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(8), pages 1351-1374, December.
    2. David J. Teece, 2003. "Competition, Cooperation, and Innovation Organizational Arrangements for Regimes of Rapid Technological Progress," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Essays In Technology Management And Policy Selected Papers of David J Teece, chapter 16, pages 447-474, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 70-83, Spring.
    5. Schoder, Detlef, 2000. "Forecasting the success of telecommunication services in the presence of network effects," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 181-200, June.
    6. Jacobides, Michael G. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn & Augier, Mie, 2006. "Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1200-1221, October.
    7. Joseph Farrell & Timothy Simcoe, 2012. "Choosing the rules for consensus standardization," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(2), pages 235-252, June.
    8. Anne Mione, 2015. "The value of intangibles in a situation of innovation: questions raised by the case of standards," Post-Print hal-01988676, HAL.
    9. Richard Makadok, 2010. "The Interaction Effect of Rivalry Restraint and Competitive Advantage on Profit: Why the Whole Is Less Than the Sum of the Parts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(2), pages 356-372, February.
    10. Sidney G. Winter, 2000. "The Satisficing Principle in Capability Learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 981-996, October.
    11. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1988. "Coordination through Committees and Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 235-252, Summer.
    12. Ricarda Bouncken & Johanna Gast & Sascha Kraus & Marcel Bogers, 2015. "Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions," Post-Print hal-02018068, HAL.
    13. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    14. Bekkers, Rudi & Duysters, Geert & Verspagen, Bart, 2002. "Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1141-1161, September.
    15. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2002. "R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1169-1184, September.
    16. Knut Blind, 2002. "Driving forces for standardization at standardization development organizations," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(16), pages 1985-1998.
    17. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    18. Blind, Knut & Thumm, Nikolaus, 2004. "Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1583-1598, December.
    19. Schilling, Melissa, 1999. "Winning the standards race: : Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 265-274, June.
    20. Sidney G. Winter, 2003. "Understanding dynamic capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 991-995, October.
    21. Gautam Ray & Jay B. Barney & Waleed A. Muhanna, 2004. "Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource‐based view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 23-37, January.
    22. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    23. Anne Mione, 2015. "The value of intangibles in a situation of innovation: questions raised by the case of standards," Post-Print hal-02013480, HAL.
    24. Pitelis, Christos, 2009. "The co-evolution of organizational value capture, value creation and sustainable advantage," MPRA Paper 23937, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    25. Shantanu Dutta & Om Narasimhan & Surendra Rajiv, 2005. "Conceptualizing and measuring capabilities: methodology and empirical application," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 277-285, March.
    26. Anne Mione, 2015. "The value of intangibles in a situation of innovation: questions raised by the case of standards," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 49-68.
    27. Ming-Jer Chen & Danny Miller, 2015. "Reconceptualizing competitive dynamics: A multidimensional framework," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 758-775, May.
    28. Timo Ali-Vehmas, 2016. "Complex Network Perspective on Collaboration in the ICT Standardization," International Journal of Standardization Research (IJSR), IGI Global, vol. 14(2), pages 33-64, July.
    29. Talia Bar & Aija Leiponen, 2014. "Committee Composition and Networking in Standard Setting: The Case of Wireless Telecommunications," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 1-23, March.
    30. Gnyawali, Devi R. & Park, Byung-Jin (Robert), 2011. "Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 650-663, June.
    31. Aija Elina Leiponen, 2008. "Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in Wireless Telecommunications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1904-1919, November.
    32. Jennifer W. Spencer, 2003. "Firms' knowledge‐sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 217-233, March.
    33. Jorde, Thomas M & Teece, David J, 1990. "Innovation and Cooperation: Implications for Competition and Antitrust," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 75-96, Summer.
    34. William Lehr, 1992. "Standardization: Understanding the process," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(8), pages 550-555, September.
    35. von Hippel, Eric, 1987. "Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 291-302, December.
    36. Werner Hoffmann & Dovev Lavie & Jeffrey J. Reuer & Andrew Shipilov, 2018. "The interplay of competition and cooperation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(12), pages 3033-3052, December.
    37. Dovev Lavie, 2007. "Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(12), pages 1187-1212, December.
    38. Garud, Raghu, 1994. "Cooperative and competitive behaviors during the process of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 385-394, July.
    39. Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 117-131, Spring.
    40. Janice A. Black & Kimberly B. Boal, 1994. "Strategic resources: Traits, configurations and paths to sustainable competitive advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S2), pages 131-148, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schott, Lennart & Schaefer, Kerstin J., 2023. "Acceptance of Chinese latecomers' technological contributions in international ICT standardization — The role of origin, experience and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    2. Fernandez, Anne-Sophie & Chiambaretto, Paul & Chauvet, Mathieu & Engsig, Juliane, 2021. "Why do MNEs both make and coopete for innovation?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    3. Heikkilä, Jussi & Rissanen, Julius & Ali-Vehmas, Timo, 2023. "Coopetition, standardization and general purpose technologies: A framework and an application," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4).
    4. Kang, Byeongwoo & Bekkers, Rudi, 2022. "The determinants of parallel invention : Measuring the role of information sharing and personal interaction between inventors," IIR Working Paper 22-06, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    2. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    3. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    4. Justus Baron & Jorge Contreras & Martin Husovec & Pierre Larouche, 2019. "Making the Rules: The Governance of Standard Development Organizations and their Policies on Intellectual Property Rights," JRC Research Reports JRC115004, Joint Research Centre.
    5. van de Kaa, Geerten & Papachristos, George & de Bruijn, Hans, 2019. "The governance of platform development processes: A metaphor and a simulation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 190-203.
    6. G. Kaa & M. J. Greeven, 2017. "Mobile telecommunication standardization in Japan, China, the United States, and Europe: a comparison of regulatory and industrial regimes," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 181-192, May.
    7. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    8. van de Kaa, Geerten & Janssen, Marijn & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Standards battles for business-to-government data exchange: Identifying success factors for standard dominance using the Best Worst Method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 182-189.
    9. Blind, Knut & Thumm, Nikolaus, 2004. "Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1583-1598, December.
    10. Vitor Trindade & Johannes Moenius, 2007. "Networks, Standards and Intellectual Property Rights," Working Papers 0705, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    11. Delcamp, Henry & Leiponen, Aija, 2014. "Innovating standards through informal consortia: The case of wireless telecommunications," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 36-47.
    12. de Vries, H.J. & de Ruijter, J.P.M. & Argam, N., 2009. "Dominant Design or Multiple Designs: The Flash Memory Card Case," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-032-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Kim, Dong-hyu & Lee, Heejin & Kwak, Jooyoung, 2017. "Standards as a driving force that influences emerging technological trajectories in the converging world of the Internet and things: An investigation of the M2M/IoT patent network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1234-1254.
    14. Wen, Wen & Forman, Chris & Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L, 2022. "The effects of technology standards on complementor innovations: Evidence from the IETF," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    15. Gnyawali, Devi R. & Park, Byung-Jin (Robert), 2011. "Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 650-663, June.
    16. Deng, Xin & Li, Qian Cher & Mateut, Simona, 2022. "Participation in setting technology standards and the implied cost of equity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    17. Hussinger, Katrin & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "The value of disclosing IPR to open standard setting organizations," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-060, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Saeed Khanagha & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari & Sotirios Paroutis & Luciano Oviedo, 2022. "Mutualism and the dynamics of new platform creation: A study of Cisco and fog computing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 476-506, March.
    19. Cabral, Luís & Salant, David, 2014. "Evolving technologies and standards regulation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 48-56.
    20. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0166497217302626. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.