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 - 10 of 11
-
ItemThe Globalization of Innovation in Nanotechnology: Some Empirical Evidence for U.S., Japanese and European Firms(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Fernández-Ribas, Andrea ; Shapira, PhilipGlobalization of science and technology has long been a topic of interest to academics and policy makers. Despite extensive research, we know little about how and what firms globalize. Some recent studies suggest that the geographic distribution of inventive activities remain highly concentrated in industrialized countries. Arora and Yoon (2007) find that inventive activity in software remains concentrated in locations within the United States and among U.S. firms. MacHer, Mowery and Di Minin (2007) find similar results for the semiconductor industry. In a previous study, Fernandez-Ribas and Shapira (2009) show that the most technologically active U.S. corporations in nanotechnology develop an increasing number of inventions abroad. However, our results also indicate that the surge of new inventive locations outside the U.S. has not substituted the inventive activities developed at home. In fact, we find that nanotechnology inventions developed at home more than doubles the number of inventions developed abroad. By contrast, other studies suggest that R&D and innovation are moving to emerging markets. For example, Wadhwa et al. (2008) find that western pharmaceutical companies are shifting substantial preclinical and clinical-trial work to India and China. Several field studies show that indeed the globalization of knowledge, technology and capital is rapidly changing the way companies compete in the market. Increasingly companies appear to develop competitive advantages through intellectual property (Rivette and Kline 2000), open innovation approaches (Chesbrough 2003), global exploitation of technology (Archibugi and Iammarino 2002), and complex global value-chain relationships. These parallel processes suggests that globalization of innovation takes different forms, ranging from international research cooperation, international exploitation of technologies or global markets of technology, and has encouraged the emergence of new business relations. In this paper, we seek to contribute to this area by better understanding strategies of innovation by large businesses in new domains of technology characterized by rapid globalization. We focus on the emerging field of nanotechnology and study innovation strategies of the most active U.S., European and Japanese companies. We expand our previous work about the geographic distribution of inventive activities of U.S. firms (Fernandez-Ribas and Shapira, 2009), and investigate similarities and differences across companies. In addition, we investigate other characteristics of the inventive and innovation processes of nanotechnologies, including university-industry linkages, and the international exploitation of technologies. Our database is the nanotechnology publication and patent database developed by the Program in Research and Innovation Systems Assessment (CNS-ASU Center for Nanotechnology in Society) at Georgia Tech, complemented with WIPO PCT national phase reports and companies' profiles. Overall our sample consists of 60+ large multinational corporations and their subsidiaries. References Archibugi, D. and Iammarino, S. (2002) The globalization of technological innovation: definition and evidence, Review of International Political Economy. Arora, Ashish, Chris Forman, and Jiwoong Yoon (2007) Globalization of Software Innovation, Sloan Industry Studies Working Papers, 2007 Number WP-2007-2. Fernandez-Ribas, Andrea and Shapira, Philip (2009) Technological diversity, scientific excellence and the location of inventive activities abroad: the case of nanotechnology, The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 34/3, pp. 286-303. Jeffrey T. MacHer, David C. Mowery, Alberto Di Minin (2007) "Non-Globalization" of Innovation in the Semiconductor Industry, California Management Review, Vol. 50 (1) Chesbrough, H. W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Rivette, K.G and Kline, D. (2000) Discovering new value in Intellectual Property, Harvard Business Review January-February 2000: 54-66. Wadhwa, Vivek, Rissing, Ben, Gereffi, Gary, Trumpbour , John and Engardio, Pete (2008) The Globalization of Innovation: Pharmaceuticals: Can India and China Cure the Global Pharmaceutical Market.
-
ItemThe Role of Brazilian Firms in Nanotechnology Development(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-03) Invernizzi, Noela ; Kay, Luciano ; Shapira, PhilipBrazil has been at the forefront of developing countries in implementing policies to promote the development of nanotechnologies, with the first programs implemented in 2001. Previous research has demonstrated that this country is also the leader in research and patenting activity in this field in Latin America, yet industry involvement in nanotechnology is relatively low considering its research output in terms of scientific publications and patents granted in recent years (Kay & Shapira, 2009). Yet, at the same time, nanotechnology policy in Brazil has promoted the development of research networks and suggested economic targets related to industrial development. For instance, the National Program of Nanotechnology includes goals like reaching one percent of the global markets for materials, products, and processes based on nanotechnology and exports of about $10 billion within 10 years (Goncalves da Silva, 2003). Although the existing evidence at the aggregate level suggests that Brazilian firms are not participating actively in nanotechnology development, when looking in detail the data show that several firms are involved to more or less extent in nanotechnology research and commercialization (Table 1). For example, some preliminary analyses show that at least 36 firms have published or co-authored nanotechnology articles in the last 15 years, more than 20 of them have applied for nanotechnology patents, and several others are mentioned in official data sources as institutions forming part of research networks supported by government programs (MCT, 2003, 2006). These more detailed data suggest some incipient industry activity in developing nanotechnologies, yet it is not clear what role these firms have in the overall process of nanotechnology development pursued by Brazil. At least two hypothetical paths of development of nanotechnology are suggested for Brazilian firms. Considering the important presence of state-owned firms in Brazil and the existing nanotechnology policy, it is expected for these firms to engage more in basic research in areas more aligned with social or broader economic goals, collaborating more with local research institutions than other types of firms. Meanwhile, Brazilian private firms and subsidiaries of foreign firms are expected to target research areas aligned with their overall commercial strategies, patenting their technologies after undertaking research in-house or in collaboration with local or foreign research institutions. For testing these hypothetical roles of firms, other variables like firm location and industry sector will be considered. Research question What is the role of Brazilian firms in the development of nanotechnology? What type of research and commercialization activities are they undertaking? Do they collaborate with other research institutions? Method Based primarily on Georgia Tech global databases of nanotechnology scientific publications and patents,[1] this work will identify the firms undertaking nanotechnology research and commercialization in Brazil. Their scientific publications and patents will be identified and matched to the industry sectors that those firms represent and to collaborations that they maintain with other national or foreign research institutions. In addition to this bibliometric analysis, this work will produce case studies of the leading Brazilian firms based on secondary data, describing in more detail their research and commercialization activities by analyzing thoroughly publication and patent records. Preliminary Results The levels of scientific publication and patenting by Brazilian firms are still very low compared to the overall nanotechnology research level in the country. The top-5 firms undertaking nanotechnology research and applying for nano-patents in Brazil were identified and shown in Table 1. The top four research firms are large state-owned firms in the sectors of agriculture, energy, and communications. Meanwhile, the top-5 patent applicants are private companies in the sectors of chemistry, medicine, electronics and optics, and engineering. In principle, these data suggest that the two hypothetical paths of nanotechnology development suggested before are plausible for Brazilian firms. That is, public firms may be more likely to target basic research in priority areas for the country, while private firms may be more likely to target the development and patenting of nanotechnologies related to their overall commercial strategies. [1] Primarily, ISI-WOS and Patstat databases.
-
ItemHighly Creative Nanotechnology Research: How Is It Defined and Organized(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10-02) Heinze, Thomas ; Rogers, Juan D. ; Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, Jan L.Scientific and technological progress is propelled by creative research. Creative research is also a prerequisite for advances toward addressing critical societal challenges. However, we know and understand little about how creative research is conducted. Moreover, much of our knowledge is focused on individual prominent scientist, particular renowned laboratories, or national level indicators. This partial and fragmentary nature of knowledge about creative research limits our ability to develop policies that can enhance organizational and institutional factors to support and encourage novel, ambitious, and valuable work. Research Questions This paper reports on a study which is investigating characteristics at the meso-level of the research setting which advance highly creative and exceptional research activities in nanotechnology. We also compare these results with another emerging research domain, which is somewhat less multidisciplinary and has a longer - albeit still emerging - history, human genetics. Several research questions to be addressed in this study will be probed in this paper, including the following. Is highly creative research associated with a pattern of career choices, such as, postdocs under specific mentors, experience in non-academic institutions prior to a tenure track job in a university, an early job at a highly prestigious institution or one already populated with highly creative researchers? Do highly creative researchers demonstrate more mobility than a comparison group in the early career stage? Do highly creative researchers have or develop a stable set of collaborators that allowed them to pursue risky projects or what seem to be far-fetched ideas? Or, similarly, are highly creative researchers more or better networked in some sense within the research community? Is there a direct association of highly creative research with publication productivity? Does the timing of creative events have a systematic pattern within their career? Will creative events be associated with affiliation in universities or industry research organizations that are larger and more oriented to multi-disciplinary activities and approaches to problems? Do highly creative researchers have more stable sources of funding during the period prior to the creative event? Methods The study builds on previous research into highly creative scientists in these two scientific fields in the U.S. and Europe (1). It examines institutional, organizational, team, and career development features and directions of this highly creative research through quantitative comparison approaches. An initial effort involved development of a comparison group for highly creative researchers, based on publication data from the Science Citation Index (SCI) through the Web of Science (WOS). These data were extracted according to definitions in Porter et al (2008), for nanotechnology, and Heinze et al (2007) for human genetics (2). The core analysis is centered on gathering and using curriculum vitae (CV) to measure and code information on institutional, organizational, and career development factors. Insights are offered for research management, research funding, and organizational designs to stimulate highly creative research. Preliminary Results Preliminary results have been focused on the complex task of developing a robust method for creating a matched comparison group for the highly creative researchers. One method that was explored is propensity score matching of highly creative researchers to a large random sample of researchers in the nanotechnology or human genetics domains based on propensity scores. In this case, the propensity score is the predicted probability of being categorized as an HCR conditional on a set of covariates. A second method matches researchers based several early career characteristics such as (1) first year of publication of the HCRs, (2) subject category of the first publication, and (3) publication volume for the first six years. In addition, continental (i.e. US or EU) affiliation was also taken into consideration. We have found that the second method yields results with greater face validity. The heterogeneity of the random sample of researchers in the comparison group does not lend itself to propensity score matching as a readily as it does to the second, more purposive, approach. Moreover, we observe that nanotechnology appears to have less heterogeneity with respect to our primary matching feature - citations per year (logged) - than does human genetics. The purposive approach has been used to form the basis for development of a set of 8 to 10 comparison researchers to ensure there is at least 1 comparison researcher CV for each of the highly creative researchers in nanotechnology and human genetics. These matched researchers have been contacted and more than 100 CVs have been obtained and added to our dataset of existing CVs of creative researchers. We anticipate coding and analysis of the data will be completed in the first half of 2009. 1) See: Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Senker, J., and Kuhlmann, S., "Identifying Creative Research Accomplishments: Methodology and Results for Nanotechnology and Human Genetics," Scientometrics, Vol. 70, No. 1, 2007, pp. 125-152. 2) Porter, A.L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., and Schoeneck, D.J., Refining Search Terms for Nanotechnology, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 10 (5), 715-728, 2008.
-
ItemBlind Matching Versus Matchmaking: Comparison Group Selection for Highly Creative Researchers(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009-10) Rogers, Juan D. ; Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, Jan L.This research examines approaches for constructing a comparison group relative to highly creative researchers in nanotechnology and human genetics in the US and Europe. Such a comparison group would be useful in identifying factors that contribute to scientific creativity in these emerging fields. Two comparison group development approaches are investigated. The first approach is based on propensity score analysis and the second is based on knowledge from the literature on scientific creativity and early career patterns. In the first approach, the log of citations over the years of activity in the domains under analysis produces a significant result, but the distribution of matches is not adequate at the middle and high ends of the scale. The second approach matches highly creative researchers in nanotechnology and human genetics with a comparison group of researchers that have the same or similar early career characteristics were considered: (1) same first year of publication (2) same subject category of the first publication, (3) similar publication volume for the first six years in the specified emerging domain. High levels of diversity among the highly creative researchers, especially those in human genetics, underscore the difficulties of constructing a comparison group to understand factors that have brought about their level of performance.
-
ItemTechnological diversity, scientific excellence and the location of inventive activities abroad: the case of nanotechnology(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008-05) Fernández-Ribas, Andrea ; Shapira, PhilipOur contribution to the expanding literature on the globalization of research and innovation is to investigate the extent to which sector-specific developments in an emerging technology (such as increasing interdisciplinarity and complexity) affect inventive activities developed abroad. We look at how technological diversity and scientific excellence of host countries in the field of nanotechnology affect the development of inventive activities by US multinational companies (MNCs). We identify the most active US-based MNCs in nanotechnology-related patenting and examine location decisions of these companies and their international subsidiaries. Econometric results confirm our hypothesis that the technological breadth of host countries positively influences the expected number of inventions developed abroad by US MNCs. Science capabilities of countries also have a positive impact on the decision to invent abroad, while the influence of market specific factors is less clear. We interpret these results as suggesting that host country science capabilities are important to attract innovative activities by MNCs, but as the interdisciplinary and convergent nature of nanotechnology evolves, access to a broadly diversified knowledge base becomes important in increasing the relative attractiveness of host locations.
-
ItemTraditional versus decentralized innovation strategies of multinational enterprises(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007-01) Fernández-Ribas, Andrea ; Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, JanIn this paper we investigate innovation strategies of foreign multinational enterprises (MNEs) by distinguishing between traditional centralized and newer decentralized competence models. In centralized competence models, MNEs maintain core research and development (R&D) functions at home, and conduct design and market screening in host locations. In decentralized competence models, MNEs also undertake R&D in host country locations. We test empirically the interrelations and heterogeneities among these three types of host country affiliate innovation activities: design, market-screening, and R&D. Our results indicate that traditional and new roles of MNEs are complements, although the determinants of each strategy are somewhat different. The presence of local knowledge spillovers is positively associated with the probability that an affiliate does R&D, design, and market-screening activities. R&D activities are more likely to appear when an affiliate has more developed internal capabilities and has been operating for a longer time in the host country. Our findings provide some support for the predictions of decentralized competence models.
-
ItemReview of product and service development practices and methodologies in ...(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006-06-30) Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, Jan ; Lamos, Erin ; Bhaskarabhatla, Ajay ; Mohapatra, Sushanta ; Cheney, David
-
ItemErawatch (European research area support)(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006-05-01) Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, Jan L.
-
ItemChange and innovation in Georgia manufacturing: a 10 year perspective(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005) Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, Jan L. ; Hegde, Deepak ; Brice, Kathryn T.Small and medium-sized manufacturers in the United States are experiencing increasing challenges in today’s global economy. U.S. manufacturing employment declined by nearly 13 percent from 1998 to 2002. More than 2.25 million manufacturing jobs were lost during this time period. Ninety-eight percent of all manufacturers, or approximately 350,000 enterprises are small or mid-sized, having 500 or fewer employees. These enterprises account for over half of the value of U.S. industrial production, and employ about 10 million jobs or two-thirds of all U.S. manufacturing workers. These workers earn in excess of twice the wages of retail workers.
-
ItemSpecial studies and analysis for the MEP (project task 1e (14171))(Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004-08-31) Shapira, Philip ; Youtie, Jan ; Urmanbetova, Aselia