IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v62y2016i10p2765-2783.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin J. Boudreau

    (London Business School, London NW1 4SA, United Kingdom; and Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Eva C. Guinan

    (Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02215)

  • Karim R. Lakhani

    (Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Christoph Riedl

    (D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115)

Abstract

Selecting among alternative projects is a core management task in all innovating organizations. In this paper, we focus on the evaluation of frontier scientific research projects. We argue that the “intellectual distance” between the knowledge embodied in research proposals and an evaluator’s own expertise systematically relates to the evaluations given. To estimate relationships, we designed and executed a grant proposal process at a leading research university in which we randomized the assignment of evaluators and proposals to generate 2,130 evaluator–proposal pairs. We find that evaluators systematically give lower scores to research proposals that are closer to their own areas of expertise and to those that are highly novel. The patterns are consistent with biases associated with boundedly rational evaluation of new ideas. The patterns are inconsistent with intellectual distance simply contributing “noise” or being associated with private interests of evaluators. We discuss implications for policy, managerial intervention, and allocation of resources in the ongoing accumulation of scientific knowledge. This paper was accepted by Lee Fleming, entrepreneurship and innovation .

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:62:y:2016:i:10:p:2765-2783
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Motivating Innovation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(5), pages 1823-1860, October.
    2. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    3. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    4. Thomas Åstebro & Samir Elhedhli, 2006. "The Effectiveness of Simple Decision Heuristics: Forecasting Commercial Success for Early-Stage Ventures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 395-409, March.
    5. Heidi L. Williams, 2013. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 1-27.
    6. Upali W. Jayasinghe & Herbert W. Marsh & Nigel Bond, 2003. "A multilevel cross‐classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 166(3), pages 279-300, October.
    7. Ethan Mollick & Ramana Nanda, 2016. "Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1533-1553, June.
    8. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603.
    9. Eric J. Johnson & John W. Payne, 1985. "Effort and Accuracy in Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 395-414, April.
    10. Fiona Murray & Siobhán O'Mahony, 2007. "Exploring the Foundations of Cumulative Innovation: Implications for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 1006-1021, December.
    11. Juan Miguel Campanario & Erika Acedo, 2007. "Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(5), pages 734-743, March.
    12. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    13. Jeffrey L. Furman & Scott Stern, 2011. "Climbing atop the Shoulders of Giants: The Impact of Institutions on Cumulative Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1933-1963, August.
    14. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    15. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    16. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    17. Liv Langfeldt, 2006. "The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 31-41, April.
    18. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    19. Boudreau, Kevin J. & Lakhani, Karim R., 2015. "“Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 4-19.
    20. Bedard, Jean, 1989. "Expertise in auditing: Myth or reality?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(1-2), pages 113-131, January.
    21. Sahal, Devendra, 1985. "Technological guideposts and innovation avenues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 61-82, April.
    22. Ulf Sandström & Martin Hällsten, 2008. "Persistent nepotism in peer-review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 175-189, February.
    23. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Citation gamesmanship: testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 851-862, June.
    24. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    25. Johnson, Eric J & Russo, J Edward, 1984. "Product Familiarity and Learning New Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(1), pages 542-550, June.
    26. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    27. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Boudreau, Kevin J. & Lakhani, Karim R., 2015. "“Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 4-19.
    2. Lee, Jangwook & Chung, Jiyoon, 2022. "Women in top management teams and their impact on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    3. Jacqueline N. Lane & Ina Ganguli & Patrick Gaule & Eva Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani, 2021. "Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1215-1244, June.
    4. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    5. Hohberger, Jan, 2016. "Does it pay to stand on the shoulders of giants? An analysis of the inventions of star inventors in the biotechnology sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 682-698.
    6. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    7. Jeffrey L. Furman & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Automation, Research Technology, and Researchers’ Trajectories: Evidence from Computer Science and Electrical Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 330-354, March.
    8. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    9. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.
    10. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    11. Keyvan Vakili & Sarah Kaplan, 2021. "Organizing for innovation: A contingency view on innovative team configuration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(6), pages 1159-1183, June.
    12. Stephen A Gallo & Joanne H Sullivan & Scott R Glisson, 2016. "The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    14. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    15. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    16. Andrew J. Nelson, 2016. "How to Share “A Really Good Secret”: Managing Sharing/Secrecy Tensions Around Scientific Knowledge Disclosure," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 265-285, April.
    17. Brunswicker, Sabine & Schecter, Aaron, 2019. "Coherence or flexibility? The paradox of change for developers’ digital innovation trajectory on open platforms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    18. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    19. Gaëlle Vallée-Tourangeau & Ana Wheelock & Tushna Vandrevala & Priscilla Harries, 2022. "Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Frank Nagle & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Jack of all trades and master of knowledge: The role of diversification in new distant knowledge integration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 55-85, January.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:62:y:2016:i:10:p:2765-2783. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.