Evaluation of the Determinants of Technological and Managerial Results of Cooperability in Brazilian Multinationals

Priscila Rezende da Costa, Geciane Silveira Porto, Antonio Thiago Benedete da Silva

Abstract


The objective of this article was to evaluate the technological and managerial elements that determine the results of the cooperability in Brazilian multinationals (BMN).We conducted a survey among the universe of BMN and the data analysis was supported by Cronbach's Alpha testing, factorial analysis, correlation analysis, principal component analysis and multiple regression analysis. As a conclusion of the study on the elements of the technological trajectory, we found that the greater the experience in R&D in the headquarters, the more effective will be the technological results of cooperability and the greater the accumulated experience in R&D in foreign subsidiaries and international cooperation the more effective will be the managerial results of cooperability. We also found that the greater the degree of relevance of strategies for technological capacity building the more effective will be the results of cooperability, both technological and managerial. The aggregated analysis of technological inputs showed that the higher the investments in R&D and the number of internal and cooperative projects the more effective will be the technological results. However, as the company expands its project portfolio, grow the difficulties regarding alignment and management of the BMN, which may adversely affect the managerial results of cooperability.

Keywords


Innovation; Cooperation; Trajectory; Technological inputs; Brazilian multinationals.

Full Text:

PDF [en]

References


ALMEIDA, A. (2007). Internacionalização de empresas brasileiras: perspectivas e riscos. Elsevier.

AMBOS, B., Schlegelmilch, B.B. (2007). Innovation and control in the multinational firm: a comparison of political and contingency approaches. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 473-486.

ANDRADE, C.A.A. (2010). Inovação e Externalização: Uma Análise de Capabilities na Indústria Farmacêutica. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produção) Departamento de Engenharia de Produção, Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo.

ASAKAWA, K., Nakamura, H., Sawada, N. (2010). Firms' open innovation policies, laboratories' external collaborations, and laboratories' R&D performance. R&D Management, 40 (2), 109-123.

BARTLETT, C.A., Ghoshal, S. (1992). Gerenciando empresas no exterior: a solução transnacional. Tradução Maria Cláudia Santos R. Ratto, revisão técnica Carlos Osmar Bertero. Makron Books 2.

BERCOVITZ, J., Feldmann, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge-Based Economic Development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175–188.

BERGHE, L.V.D., Guild, P.D. (2008). The strategic value of new university technology and its impact on exclusivity of licensing transactions: An empirical study. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 91-103.

BRUNEEL, J., Este, P.D., Salter, A., 2010. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university – industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39 (7), 858-868.

CARAYANNIS, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. (2009). Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix : toward a 21st century fractual innovation ecosytem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46 (3/4), 201-234.

CHESBROUGH, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. (2008). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press.

CHIARONI, D., Chiesa, V., Frattini, F. (2011). Technovation The Open Innovation Journey : How firms dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation, 31 (1), 34-43.

CHIARONI, D., Chiesa, V.; Frattini, F. (2010). Unravelling the process from Closed to Open Innovation : evidence from mature, asset-intensive industries. R&D Management, 40 (3), 222-245.

CHIESA, V. (2000). Global R&D Project Management and Organization: a taxonomy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17 (5), 341-359.

CRONBACH, J.L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 (3), 297-334.

CYRINO, Á.B., Barcellos, E.P. (2006). Estratégias de internacionalização: evidências e reflexões sobre as empresas brasileiras. In: Tanure, B., Duarte, R.G. (Org.). Gestão internacional. Saraiva, 221-246.

DOZ, Y., Santos, J., Williamson, P. (2001). From Global to Metanational. Harvard Business School Press.

EISENHARDT, K.M., Martin, J.A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.

ENGEROFF, R., Balestrin, A. (2008). Inovação fechada versus inovação aberta: um estudo de caso da indústria de cutelaria. In: Simpósio de Gestão da Inovação Tecnológica, XXV, ANPAD.

FERRO, A.F.P. (2010). Gestão da inovação aberta: práticas e competências em P&D Colaborativa. Tese (Doutorado em Política Científica e Tecnológica) Programa de Pós-Graduação em Política Científica e Tecnológica, Instituto de Geociências Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

GASSMANN, O., Enkel, E., Chesbrough, H., 2010. The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40 (3), 213-221.

GASSMANN, O., Zedtwitz, M.V., 1999. New Concepts and Trends in International R&D Organization. Research Policy, 28 (2), 231-250.

GIL, A.C. (2002). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 4 ed. Atlas.

HAIR, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R. L. (2007). Análise multivariada de dados. Bookman.

HANEL, P., Pierre, M. (2006). Industry–University Collaboration by Canadian Manufacturing Firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 485–499.

HEIMERIKS, K.H., Duysters, G., Vanhaverbeke, W. (2007). Learning mechanisms and differential performance in alliance portfolios. Strategic Organization, 5 (4), 373-408.

HELFAT, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J., Winter, S.G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities. Blackwell Publishing.

HITT, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Hoskisson, R.E. (2008). Administração estratégica: competitividade e globalização. Thomson.

HOANG, H.A., Rothaermel, F.T. (2010). Leveraging internal and external experience : exploration , exploitation , and R&D project performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (7), 734-758.

HOANG, H., Rothaermel, F.T. (2005). The effect of general and partner-specific alliance experience on joint R&D project performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (2), 332–345.

KERLINGER, F.N. (1980). Metodologia de Pesquisa em Ciências Sociais. EPU.

KIM, C., Song, J. (2007). Creating new technology through alliances: an empiricalinvestigation of joint patents. Technovation, 27 (8), 461-470.

LAI, J.H., Chang, S.C., Chen, S.S. (2010). Is experience valuable in international strategic alliances? Journal of International Management, 16 (3), 247-261.

LAURSENA, K., Salterb, A. (2004). Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?. Research Policy, 33 (8), 1201–1215.

LAVIE, D., Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4), 797-818.

LEYDESDORFF, L., Meyer, M. (2006). Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 35 (10), 1441-1449.

LEYDESDORFF, L., Etzkowitz, H. (2001). The Transformation of University-industry-government Relations. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 5 (4), 1-17.

LIMA, M.C. (2008). Monografia: a engenharia da produção acadêmica. 2. ed. Saraiva.

O’CONNOR, G.C. (2008). Open, Radical Innovation: Toward an Integrated Model in large established firms. In: Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford.

PAGANO, M., Gauvreau, K. (2004). Princípios de bioestatística. 2ª ed. Thompson.

PETRUZZELLI, M. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university – industry collaborations : A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31 (7), 309-319.

PORTO, G., Galina, S., Costa, P.R., Moura, P., Mata, R. (2010). Gestão de P&D de empresas multinacionais brasileiras. In: Fleury, A. (Org.). Gestão Empresarial para a Internacionalização das Empresa Brasileiras. Atlas.

SAMPSON, R.C. (2005). Experience effects and collaborative returns in R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (11), 1009–1031.

SANTOS, J. (2006). O desafio Metanacional. In: Tanure, B., Duarte, R. G. (Org.). Gestão Internacional. Saraiva.

SIMARD, C., West, J. (2008). Knowledge Networks and the Geographic Locus of Innovation. In: Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford.

TEECE, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509-533.

TEECE, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (13), 1319–1350.

VAN DER MEER, H. (2007). Open Innovation – The Dutch Treat: Challenges in Thinking in Business Models. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16 (2), 192-202.

VEUGELERS, R., Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23 (5), 355–379.

WASSMER, U. (2010). Alliance Portfolios: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 36 (1), 141-171.

WEST, J., Gallagher, S. (2008). Patterns of Open Innovation in Open Source Software. Open Innovation: researching a new paradigm, 235 (11).

WINTER, S.G. (2003). Understanding Dynamic Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (10), 991-995.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242013000500002



Copyright (c)



2017 © Universidad Alberto Hurtado - Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 
Erasmo Escala 1835 - Santiago, Chile.
Economic Analysis Review | Observatorio Económico | Gestión y Tendencias 

Journal Supported by Chimera Innova Group