The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 490–504

Between market forces and knowledge based motives: the governance of defence innovation in the UK

Article

Abstract

The purpose of this contribution is to examine the evolutionary transformations that have characterised the UK defence innovation system since the mid 1980s. It focuses on the central and challenging issue faced by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in implementing effective governance mechanisms emerging from the continuous trade-off between short-term market driven measures motivated by efficiency arguments, and more long term and relational considerations in terms of knowledge economics. Furthermore, in terms of technology transfer, this evolution has been accompanied by a gradual shift from an initial logic of spin-off to society expected from government driven military projects, to a logic of spin-in where the main concern of the military sector is to broaden its industrial and R&D base.

Keywords

Defence procurement Defence innovation policy Private-public networks Knowledge management Innovation governance 

JEL Classification

O32 O38 H57 L14 

References

  1. Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 12(2), 215–234. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amesse, F., & Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy, 30(9), 1459–1478. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00162-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (Eds.). (2004). Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Fraja, G., & Hartley, K. (1996). Defence procurement: Theory and UK policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 12(4), 70–88. doi:10.1093/oxrep/12.4.70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. doi:10.2307/259056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. House of Commons. (1999). Defence research. Ninth report of the select committee on defence, session 1998–1999: 10 NovHC616. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  8. House of Commons. (2000). The future of DERA. Ninth report of the select committee on defence, session 1999–2000: 20 Jun HC462. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  9. House of Commons. (2003a). Defence procurement. Eighth report of the select committee on defence, session 2002–2003: 23 July HC694. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  10. House of Commons. (2003b). Developments with QinetiQ minutes of evidence, Tuesday 21 January 2003. Session 2002–2003: 9 April 2003, HC322-i. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  11. Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 405–425. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<405::AID-SMJ103>3.0.CO;2-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397. doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Langlois, R. N., & Foss, N. J. (1999). Capabilities and governance: The rebirth of production in the theory of economic organization. Kyklos, 59(2), 201–218. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.1999.tb01442.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ministry of Defence. (1998a). Strategic defence review. White paper: 8 July 1998. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  16. Ministry of Defence. (1998b). Partnering arrangements between the MOD and its suppliers. Ministry of Defence/Confederation of British Industry London. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.ams.mod.uk/ams/content/docs/toolkit/gateway/guidance/linkdocs/partner/section1.htm#1.
  17. Ministry of Defence. (1998c). Defence diversification: Getting the most out of defence technology. Proposals for a defence diversification agency. Green paper: 5 March 1998. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  18. Ministry of Defence. (2001a). Policy paper no. 4: Defence acquisition: December 2001. London: Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
  19. Ministry of Defence. (2001b). Defence science and innovation strategy. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://192.5.30.131/issues/science_innovation/index.htm.
  20. Ministry of Defence. (2001c). The future of the defence diversification agency: A consultative document: Feb 2001. London: Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
  21. Ministry of Defence. (2002a). Policy paper no. 5: Defence industrial strategy: October 2002. London: Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Defence. (2002b). Smarter partnering: Additional practical guidance about partnering arrangements between MoD and its suppliers, a document produced by MoD and industry. London: Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
  23. Ministry of Defence. (2005). Defence industrial strategy: Defence white paper: 15 Dec 2005. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  24. Mollas-Gallart, J., & Sinclair, T. (1999). From technology generation to technology transfer: The concept and reality of the dual-use technology centres. Technovation, 19(11), 661–671. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(99)00063-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mollas-Gallart, J., James, A., & Rigby, J. (2000). National case study of civil-military interface: The UK’s defence evaluation and research agency––in search of a successful model of technology transfer. Report to the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences.Google Scholar
  26. National Audit Office. (1997). The defence evaluation and research agency: Review of performance, HC 411, session 1997–1998. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  27. National Audit Office. (2001). Non-competitive procurement in the ministry of defence, HC 290, session 2001–2002. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  28. National Audit Office. (2002). Implementation of integrated project teams, HC 671, session 2001–2002. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  29. National Audit Office. (2003). Through life management, report by the comptroller and auditor general, HC 698, session 2002–2003). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  30. National Audit Office. (2004). The management of defence research and technology. Report by the comptroller and auditor general, HC 630, session 2003–2004. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  31. Nooteboom, B. (1999). Innovation and inter-firm linkages: New implications for policy. Research Policy, 28(8), 793–805. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00022-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4, 69–92. doi:10.1023/A:1009941416749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 81–92.Google Scholar
  34. Spinardi, G. (1992). Defence technology enterprises. Science & Public Policy, 19(4), 198–206.Google Scholar
  35. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bureau d’Économie Théorique et AppliquéeUniversité Louis PasteurStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.École des Hautes Études Commerciales (HEC)MontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations