IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/09073.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fit and complementarity: cognitive distance and combined competence as predictors of co-operative R&D projects' outcomes in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Zibell, Laurent
  • Allen, Peter M.

Abstract

This article considers cognitive distance and combined competence as predictors of concrete outcomes in co-operative Research and Development projects. The operationalisation is based upon a dedicated survey, answered by matched pairs of projects managers in partnering organisations, addressing technical and scientific competence, R&D management competence and cultural features. Empirical validation was performed on 92 projects based in France, Germany and the United Kingdom in the industry of electronics and telecommunications equipment. Selected dimensions of the cognitive distance and of combined competence being developed appear to be better predictors of concrete project outcomes than geographic distance, differences in organisation size or in legal status.

Suggested Citation

  • Zibell, Laurent & Allen, Peter M., 2009. "Fit and complementarity: cognitive distance and combined competence as predictors of co-operative R&D projects' outcomes in Europe," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-073, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:09073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/28960/1/61394030X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lydia Greunz, 2003. "Geographically and technologically mediated knowledge spillovers between European regions," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 37(4), pages 657-680, December.
    2. Wuyts, Stefan & Colombo, Massimo G. & Dutta, Shantanu & Nooteboom, Bart, 2005. "Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 277-302, October.
    3. Maurizio Zollo & Jeffrey J. Reuer & Harbir Singh, 2002. "Interorganizational Routines and Performance in Strategic Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(6), pages 701-713, December.
    4. Audretsch, David B. & Feldman, Maryann P., 2004. "Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 2713-2739, Elsevier.
    5. Hagedoorn, John, 2002. "Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 477-492, May.
    6. Lars Coenen & Jerker Moodysson & Bjørn T. Asheim, 2004. "Nodes, networks and proximities: on the knowledge dynamics of the Medicon Valley biotech cluster," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(7), pages 1003-1018, June.
    7. Uwe Cantner & Andreas Meder, 2007. "Technological proximity and the choice of cooperation partner," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 2(1), pages 45-65, June.
    8. Wagner, Alfred, 1891. "Marshall's Principles of Economics," History of Economic Thought Articles, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, vol. 5, pages 319-338.
    9. Belderbos, Rene & Carree, Martin & Lokshin, Boris, 2004. "Cooperative R&D and firm performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1477-1492, December.
    10. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco, 2001. "Knowledge Spillovers and Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(4), pages 975-1005, December.
    11. Rachelle C. Sampson, 2005. "Experience effects and collaborative returns in R&D alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(11), pages 1009-1031, November.
    12. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    13. Belderbos, Rene & Carree, Martin & Lokshin, Boris, 2004. "Cooperative R&D and firm performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1477-1492, December.
    14. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    15. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    16. Marc-Hubert Depret & Abdelillah Hamdouch, 2004. "Coopération stratégique, coalitions interfirmes et réseaux d'innovation - Vers de nouveaux fondements de la dynamique concurrentielle ?," Post-Print hal-00279283, HAL.
    17. Andre Torre & Alain Rallet, 2005. "Proximity and Localization," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 47-59.
    18. Massimo G. Colombo, 2003. "Alliance form: a test of the contractual and competence perspectives," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(12), pages 1209-1229, December.
    19. T. K. Das & Bing-Sheng Teng, 2000. "Instabilities of Strategic Alliances: An Internal Tensions Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 77-101, February.
    20. Bart Nooteboom, 2000. "Learning by Interaction: Absorptive Capacity, Cognitive Distance and Governance," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 69-92, March.
    21. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Deeds, David L., 2006. "Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 429-460, July.
    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. Ellen Siu, 2018. "Interorganisational collaboration in Academic Health Science Centre: A case study on King’s Health Partnership," Working Papers 40, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Feb 2021.
    2. Abiodun A. Egbetokun, 2012. "Cooperation behaviour and innovation performance in the Nigerian manufacturing industry," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-037, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    3. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Ron Boschma & Koen Frenken, 2020. "Proximity, Innovation and Networks: A Concise Review and Some Next Steps," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2019, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Mar 2020.
    4. M. C. Guardo & K. R. Harrigan, 2016. "Shaping the path to inventive activity: the role of past experience in R&D alliances," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 250-269, April.
    5. Kafouros, Marios & Love, James H & Ganotakis, Panagiotis & Konara, Palitha, 2020. "Experience in R&D collaborations, innovative performance and the moderating effect of different dimensions of absorptive capacity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    6. Kwangsoo Shin & Sang Ji Kim & Gunno Park, 2016. "How does the partner type in R&D alliances impact technological innovation performance? A study on the Korean biotechnology industry," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 141-164, March.
    7. HUO Dong & MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki, 2015. "Understanding Two Types of Technological Diversity and their Effects on the Technological Value of Outcomes from Bilateral Inter-firm R&D Alliances," Discussion papers 15064, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    8. Lorenzo Cassi & Anne Plunket, 2014. "Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 53(2), pages 395-422, September.
    9. Ron Boschma & Ron Martin, 2010. "The Aims and Scope of Evolutionary Economic Geography," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Steffen Runge & Christian Schwens & Matthias Schulz, 2022. "The invention performance implications of coopetition: How technological, geographical, and product market overlaps shape learning and competitive tension in R&D alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 266-294, February.
    11. Rene Belderbos & Victor Gilsing & Shinya Suzuki, 2015. "Direct and mediated ties to universities: ‘Scientific’ absorptive capacity and innovation performance of pharmaceutical firms," Working Papers of Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven 504836, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven.
    12. Haasnoot, Cornelis W. & de Vaal, Albert, 2022. "Heterogeneous firms and cluster externalities: how asymmetric effects at the firm level affect cluster productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    13. Martinez-Noya, Andrea & Narula, Rajneesh, 2018. "What more can we learn from R&D alliances? : A review and research agenda," MERIT Working Papers 2018-022, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    14. Hewitt-Dundas, Nola & Gkypali, Areti & Roper, Stephen, 2019. "Does learning from prior collaboration help firms to overcome the ‘two-worlds’ paradox in university-business collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1310-1322.
    15. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    16. Arie Y. Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2011. "Microfoundations of Internal and External Absorptive Capacity Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 81-98, February.
    17. Martínez-Noya, Andrea & García-Canal, Esteban, 2021. "Innovation performance feedback and technological alliance portfolio diversity: The moderating role of firms’ R&D intensity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    18. Kobarg, Sebastian & Stumpf-Wollersheim, Jutta & Welpe, Isabell M., 2019. "More is not always better: Effects of collaboration breadth and depth on radical and incremental innovation performance at the project level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-10.
    19. René Belderbos & Martin Carree & Boris Lokshin & Juan Fernández Sastre, 2015. "Inter-temporal patterns of R&D collaboration and innovative performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 123-137, February.
    20. den Hamer, Pieter & Frenken, Koen, 2021. "A network-based model of exploration and exploitation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 589-599.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cognitive distance; Competence; Capability; Cooperation; R&D;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility
    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • L25 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Performance
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:zewdip:09073. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.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.