IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v145y2025ics0166497225000707.html

Back to the future of industrial research: Early double-impact research at General Electric, AT&T and DuPont (1902–1948)

Author

Listed:
  • Lenfle, Sylvain
  • Le Masson, Pascal

Abstract

After the corporate research bloodbath that occurred in the 1990s, there was a need for firms to reinvent the management of corporate research. Although several explanations exist for how corporate research can fail, management science lacks models that can account for successful management. This paper addresses this gap by proposing such a model. Methodologically, this paper adopts a historical approach because it is particularly adaptable to a) assessing success on clearly evaluated facts at several time horizons and b) using rich, longitudinal, well-controlled data related to how management occurred in the past. This paper thus discusses the strategic role and inner functioning of corporate research at General Electric, AT&T Bell Labs and DuPont. These four cases demonstrate that successful corporate research can be attributed to the existence of simultaneous and bidirectional links between corporate research, strategy, new product development and the scientific community. These sixfold links constitute conditions for corporate research that are strategically and scientifically relevant. The results show that, contrary to widespread belief, 1) research is carefully integrated into the firm's strategy, and 2) GE, AT&T and DuPont provide examples of the fruitful interaction between fundamental research and new product development that leads to new products and scientific breakthroughs. The present paper thus contributes to the ongoing debates on the role and management of corporate research, particularly “double-impact” research.

Suggested Citation

  • Lenfle, Sylvain & Le Masson, Pascal, 2025. "Back to the future of industrial research: Early double-impact research at General Electric, AT&T and DuPont (1902–1948)," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:145:y:2025:i:c:s0166497225000707
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497225000707
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103238?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2016. "Fayol, Guillaume, Chevenard - la Science, l'Industrie et l'exploration de l'inconnu : logique et gouvernance d'une recherche conceptive," Post-Print hal-01389625, HAL.
    2. Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil & Armand Hatchuel, 2017. "Design Theory - Methods and Organization for Innovation," Post-Print hal-01481877, HAL.
    3. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    4. Natalya Vinokurova & Rahul Kapoor, 2020. "Converting inventions into innovations in large firms: How inventors at Xerox navigated the innovation process to commercialize their ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2372-2399, December.
    5. Benjamin Cabanes & Pascal Le Masson & Benoît Weil, 2020. "Organiser la création de connaissance pour l’innovation de rupture. Des communautés aux sociétés proto-épistémiques d’experts," Revue française de gestion, Lavoisier, vol. 0(3), pages 35-60.
    6. Martin Watzinger & Thomas A. Fackler & Markus Nagler & Monika Schnitzer, 2020. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 328-359, November.
    7. Sylvain Lenfle & Christoph Loch, 2010. "Lost Roots: How Project Management Came to Emphasize Control Over Flexibility and Novelty," Post-Print hal-00557549, HAL.
    8. Daniel Carvajal Pérez & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil & Axelle Araud & Vincent Chaperon, 2020. "Creative heritage: Overcoming tensions between innovation and tradition in the luxury industry," Post-Print hal-03022919, HAL.
    9. Plantec, Quentin & Deval, Marie-Alix & Hooge, Sophie & Weil, Benoit, 2023. "Big data as an exploration trigger or problem-solving patch: Design and integration of AI-embedded systems in the automotive industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    10. Goldstein, Anna P. & Narayanamurti, Venkatesh, 2018. "Simultaneous pursuit of discovery and invention in the US Department of Energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1505-1512.
    11. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi & Jungkyu Suh, 2020. "The Changing Structure of American Innovation: Some Cautionary Remarks for Economic Growth," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 39-93.
    12. Nicholas S. Argyres & Brian S. Silverman, 2004. "R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 929-958, August.
    13. Andrew M. Pettigrew, 1990. "Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 267-292, August.
    14. Quentin Plantec & Marie-Alix Deval & Sophie Hooge & Benoit Weil, 2023. "Big data as an exploration trigger or problem-solving patch: Design and integration of AI-embedded systems in the automotive industry," Post-Print hal-04254146, HAL.
    15. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2018. "The decline of science in corporate R&D," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 3-32, January.
    16. Arora, Ashish & Belenzon, Sharon & Dionisi, Bernardo, 2023. "First-mover advantage and the private value of public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    17. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2024. "Simultaneous Discovery–Invention in Corporate R&D: Lessons from the CRISPR Case," Post-Print hal-04790692, HAL.
    18. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    19. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Walrave, Bob & Talmar, Madis & Podoynitsyna, Ksenia S. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Verbong, Geert P.J., 2018. "A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 103-113.
    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. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    2. Sheer, Lia, 2022. "Sitting on the Fence: Integrating the two worlds of scientific discovery and invention within the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    3. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    4. Ceccagnoli, Marco & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2024. "Reaching beyond low-hanging fruit: Basic research and innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    5. Ugo Rizzo & Valerio Sterzi, 2022. "Characterising science-industry patent collaborations: knowledge base, impact and economic value," Working Papers hal-03896633, HAL.
    6. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    7. Xiaosheng Ju & Shengjun Jiang & Yuxuan Hu, 2025. "Corporate basic research and technological capabilities: Evidence from China," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 275-304, April.
    8. Rønde, Thomas & Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea, 2018. "Waiting for the payday? The market for startups and the timing of entrepreneurial exit," CEPR Discussion Papers 12724, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. René Belderbos & Nazareno Braito & Jian Wang, 2024. "Heterogeneous university research and firm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, and investment type," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1959-1989, October.
    10. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoît Weil, 2022. "Mécanismes de découvertes – inventions dans la recherche industrielle : aux origines de CRISPR-Cas9 dans l’industrie agroalimentaire," Post-Print hal-03727323, HAL.
    11. Linde Colen & René Belderbos & Stijn Kelchtermans & Bart Leten, 2024. "Many are called, few are chosen: the role of science in drug development decisions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 492-517, April.
    12. Nagar, Jay Prakash & Breschi, Stefano & Fosfuri, Andrea, 2024. "ERC science and invention: Does ERC break free from the EU Paradox?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(8).
    13. Rune Stenbacka & Mihkel Tombak, 2020. "University‐firm competition in basic research and university funding policy," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(4), pages 1017-1040, August.
    14. René Belderbos & Marcelina Grabowska & Stijn Kelchtermans & Bart Leten & Jojo Jacob & Massimo Riccaboni, 2021. "Whither geographic proximity? Bypassing local R&D units in foreign university collaboration," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(7), pages 1302-1330, September.
    15. Plantec, Quentin & Cabanes, Benjamin & le Masson, Pascal & Weil, Benoit, 2023. "Early-career academic engagement in university–industry collaborative PhDs: Research orientation and project performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    16. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2015. "Killing the Golden Goose? The Decline of Science in Corporate R&D," NBER Working Papers 20902, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Cassiman, Bruno & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 775-799, June.
    18. Chen, Ping-Chuan & Hung, Shiu-Wan, 2016. "An actor-network perspective on evaluating the R&D linking efficiency of innovation ecosystems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 303-312.
    19. Forman, Chris & van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2019. "Digital technology adoption and knowledge flows within firms: Can the Internet overcome geographic and technological distance?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    20. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2022. "The Ossified Economy: The Case of Germany, 1870-2020," IZA Discussion Papers 15607, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:techno:v:145:y:2025:i:c:s0166497225000707. 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.