Organizational Unit:
School of Public Policy
School of Public Policy
Permanent Link
Research Organization Registry ID
Description
Previous Names
Parent Organization
Parent Organization
Organizational Unit
Includes Organization(s)
Organizational Unit
ArchiveSpace Name Record
Publication Search Results
Now showing
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemWhy Strategic R&D Is (Still) Homebound in Wireless Telecom(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Di Minin, AlbertoGlobalization is a relevant issue for policymakers and firms alike. Although individuals, firms, and countries have always been connected in various ways throughout history, commentators generally claim that globalization has caused a once-unfathomable new height of connectedness at the dawn of the 21st century. This is typically considered to be the outcome of the combined effects of regulatory, political, and market liberalization combined with technological change, especially in information and communication technologies (ICT). In short, globalization might be defined as "the high and increasing interdependency and interrelatedness among different and geographically dispersed actors" (Archibugi and Iammarino, 2002, p. 99; for a popularized discussion see also Friedman (2005)). The most visible trend of globalization, from the viewpoint of firms, has been foreign direct investment (FDI), in the form of the outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing. However, the rapid change in the global division of manufacturing has perhaps overshadowed another phenomenon: the internationalization of research and development (R&D) (UNCTAD, 2005). Globalization of R&D means researchers and inventors increasingly tend to be located outside the home country of their companies. Despite this trajectory, Patel and Pravit present the non-globalization argument in a seminal paper (Patel and Pavitt 1991), suggesting that the actual inventive activities of multinational corporations (MNCs) tend to be significantly less globalised than the international distribution of R&D expenditures seems to indicate. Patel and Pavitt (1991) suggest that this may be because country-specific characteristics of national systems of innovation still matter for more strategic R&D activities; they highlight such issues as the importance of physical proximity and tacit knowledge, education, training, and basic research. Indeed, R&D internationalization is still today a much-debated subject. Several studies, which will be reviewed in later sections, have recently documented that a growing share of R&D of MNCs is off shored, but evidence is mixed and the "non-globalization" argument also finds support in other empirical analyses. My focus on the wireless telecommunications industry is particularly interesting and relevant to this debate for three reasons. First, this industry has benefited from trade liberalization, deregulation, and technological change, as governments around the world are developing and upgrading their ICT infrastructures (Zysman and Newman, 2006). Second, the industry has also changed its technological core due to the convergence of data- and telecommunications and the emergence of the Internet, thus providing multiple entry points for firms and inventors, including new geographical locations outside the US and Europe. Third, much of the extant research on the internationalization of R&D tends to treat R&D as a 'black box' where the specificities of different types of R&D are undisclosed. This is partly a consequence of the lack or inaccessibility of detailed data on the different types of R&D and inventive activity at the firm level. Due to the significance of standardization, a system of notification of patents deemed essential to specific standards has been set up. This system provides an interesting analytical lens for identifying R&D and inventive activities that lie closest to the technological core of the industry in a strategic, and perhaps also commercial, sense. I will argue that entering into the discussion of patents and Intellectual Property (IP) is beneficial to an examination of the internationalization of R&D as it allows a closer look at the ways the management of intangibles can influence the exploitation of international R&D investment. This paper contributes to research providing a new interpretation for the homeboundedness of critical industrial R&D, and in general to the literature on appropriability and maturation of R&D off shoring. I was able to discuss the result of my quantitative empirical analysis directly with the managers involved in key decisions relating to the development of some of these technologies. Their viewpoint suggests the presence of what I have defined "Safe R&D nests". I will discuss that such "safeness" derives by a close coordination between scientific and technological research and management of intangible assets.
-
ItemOne Way or Two Ways Globalization?-The Double-Network Theory and Chinese R&D Internationalization(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-02) Di Minin, Alberto ; Zhang, JieyinRecent research has paid much attention to MNCs from developed countries, which are the largest international R&D investors. However, the germination of international R&D investment from emerging countries, such as China, has been neglected in academia. According to data from UNCTAD (2005) and Jaruzelski and Dehoff (2008), FDI into developing and transition countries has increased in the past decades and China has become the most attractive host country of FDI. On the one hand, China has been making efforts in recent years to attract foreign investment in R&D with the aim of enhancing the technology capabilities of Chinese firms (Wu and Callahan, 2005). On the other hand, Chinese MNCs' R&D operations have also begun to expand overseas (Tung, 2005). However, the academia has somewhat neglected the phenomenon of international research and development (R&D) from multinationals headquartered in these economies. Research questions In this paper we claim that the R&D internationalization of Chinese firms is an emerging and variegated phenomenon. From a perspective of a double-network R&D organization perspective, we investigate international R&D motivations (home-based exploration and home-based exploitation) and organizational learning (cooperative learning and experiential learning) of Chinese companies to discuss different patterns of R&D internationalization and the dynamics of modes and goal of learning of multinationals from emerging countries. More specifically, we focus on the following three research questions with the evidence in Europe: Research question 1: Are Chinese MNCs in EU building up double-network R&D organizations? Research question 2: Are Chinese double-network R&D organization guided by home-based exploration or home-based exploitation? Research question 3: What is the dynamics/development of R&D internationalization strategy? Method To answer the research questions and explain if the phenomenon exists, we use the multi-case study method. We first identified 26 R&D units established by Chinese companies in Europe by combining a variety of sources. Then, we select 8 units as our investigation samples, and conducted face-to-face or telephone interviews. Preliminary results In the course of interviews in Europe, we find evidence that both different modes (experiential and cooperative) and different goals (explorative and exploitative) coexist. Our evidence suggests the co-existence of two goals of learning. Chinese companies are planning their R&D subsidiaries in Europe mainly driven by technology exploration, even though some of them are also ambitious to enter the local market. High quality specialized human resources are the most important technology-driven motivation for setting up overseas R&D units in Europe. Our evidence suggests the co-existence of two modes of learning. In order to get new knowledge, Chinese companies try to achieve a good external cooperation. At the same time, through the interaction with local partners, the R&D units go through a maturation process, progressively increasing the level of sophistication of the activities they perform. They gradually become the independent knowledge creators. The role of the European subsidiaries is to both create knowledge (knowledge creator) and transfer back to the company new knowledge (knowledge reverse transfer). Our evidence suggests an evolution of modes and goal of learning. The Chinese double-network first started from cooperative learning finalized to exploration and then moved to experiential learning finalized to exploitation. R&D internationalization of multinationals from emerging countries is a quite new phenomenon and has different characteristics, evolution processes, and catch-up strategies compared with the multinationals from developed countries that deserve more academic attentions and theoretical guidance. Our qualitative analysis is designed to spot the presence of a phenomenon, showing its richness and multiple facets. We set the stage for further studies to explore causalities and managerial implications. Reference Jaruzelski, B. and Dehoff, K., (2008). 'Beyond Borders: The Global Innovation 1000'. strategy+business, 50-69. Tung, R.L., (2005). 'Perspectives-New Era, New Realities: Musings on a New Research Agenda?from an Old Timer'. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22 (2):143-157. UNCTAD, (2005). 'World Investment Report (WIR) 2005: Transnational Corporations and the Internationalization of R&D'. New York/Genf: United Nations New York and Geneva. Wu, J. and J. Callahan, 2005, Motive, form and function of international R&D alliances: Evidence from the Chinese IT industry. Journal of High Technology Management Research 16, 173-191.