The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 696–714 | Cite as

Conditionally-mediated effects of scale in collaborative R&D

Article

Abstract

This paper reports the results of an empirical investigation into the role of project scale, as reflected in consortium size, on the impacts obtained by partners participating in publicly-funded collaborative R&D projects. I argue in this study that scale may affect performance indirectly rather than directly. Specifically, I model the influence of scale as being mediated by a set of intervening variables that may be said to “transmit” both positive and negative effects through (i) complementarity of resources, (ii) learning, and (iii) transaction costs in project implementation. Moreover, I hypothesize that these indirect effects are conditional on certain moderators that include resources committed, project management mechanisms, and project uncertainty and scope. The results offered in this study largely confirm the proposition of conditionally-mediated effects of scale on performance. They indicate that a number of conditional indirect effects are indeed significant, and surprisingly, that these effects are mostly negative.

Keywords

Collaborative R&D Economies of scale R&D performance Moderated mediation 

JEL classification

O30 O31 O32 O38 

References

  1. Arnold, E., Clark, J., & Muscio, A. (2005). What the evaluation record tells us about European Union Framework Programme performance. Science and Public Policy, 32(5), 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balachandra, R., & Friar, J. H. (1997). Factors for success in R&D projects and new product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(3), 276–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20(1), 15–140.Google Scholar
  5. Broström, A. (2010). Firms’ rationales for interaction with research universities and the principles for public co-funding. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–17 (published on-line).Google Scholar
  6. Caloghirou, Y., Hondroyiannis, G., & Vonortas, N. S. (2003). The performance of research partnerships. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(2–3), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. S. (2001). University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, C. J., & Lin, B. W. (2004). The effects of environment, knowledge attribute, organizational climate, and firm characteristics on knowledge sourcing decisions. R&D Management, 34(2), 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. M. (2001). Scale and scope in drug development: Unpacking the advantages of size in pharmaceutical research. Journal of Health Economics, 20(6), 1033–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, W. M. (1995). Empirical studies of innovative activity. In P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of innovation and technical change. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DTI—Office of Science and Technology. (2004). The impact of the EU framework programmes in the UK.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2004). Five-year assessment 19992003.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2010). Interim evaluation of the Seventh Framework Proggramme: Report of the expert group.Google Scholar
  15. Forfas. (2001). The 4th framework programme in Irelandan evaluation of the operation and impacts in Ireland of the EU’s fourth framework programme for research and development.Google Scholar
  16. Georghiou, L. (1999). Socio-economic effects of collaborative R&D–European experiences. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(1), 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gomes-Casseres, B. (1993). Managing international alliances: Conceptual framework. Harvard Business School Case Study (pp. 133–793).Google Scholar
  18. Grant, R. M., & Baden Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoang, H., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2005). The effect of general and partner-specific alliance experience on joint R&D project performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 332–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsu, F. M., Horng, D. J., & Hsueh, C. C. (2009). The effect of government-sponsored R&D programmes on additionality in recipient firms in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(3), 204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability, stock market response, and long term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 747–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katz, M. L., & Ordover, J. A. (1990). R&D competition and cooperation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 137, 192.Google Scholar
  26. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology (pp. 233–265).Google Scholar
  27. Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (1999). Federal laboratories as research partners. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17(4), 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Love, J. H., & Roper, S. (2004). The organisation of innovation: Collaboration, cooperation and multifunctional groups in UK and German manufacturing. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28(3), 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luukkonen, T. (2002). Research evaluation in Europe: State of the art. Research Evaluation, 11(2), 81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Macher, J. T., & Boerner, C. S. (2006). Experience and scale and scope economies: Trade offs and performance in development. Strategic Management Journal, 27(9), 845–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matt, M., & Wolff, S. (2005). The organizational specificities of Brite-Euram collaborative projects: Micro-analysis and policy implications. In P. Llerena & M. Matt (Eds.), Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy (pp. 285–318). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Millar, J., Demaid, A., & Quintas, P. (1997). Trans-organizational innovation: A framework for research. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9(4), 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muldur, U., Corvers, F., & Delanghe, H. (2006). A new deal for an effective European research policy. In The design and impacts of the 7th framework programme. Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Nooteboom, B. (1999). Inter-firm alliances: Analysis and design. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nooteboom, B., & Stam, E. (2008). Innovation, the economy and policy. In B. Nooteboom & E. Stam (Eds.), Micro-foundations for innovation policy. Amsterdam: WRR Verkenningen.Google Scholar
  39. Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & Van Den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7), 1016–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1995). Patterns of technological activity: Their measurement and interpretation. In Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Pavitt, K., Robson, M., & Townsend, J. (1987). The size distribution of innovating firms in the UK: 1945–1983. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(3), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717.Google Scholar
  44. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rothaermel, F. T. (2001). Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 687–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stock, G. N., & Tatikonda, M. V. (2000). A typology of project-level technology transfer processes. Journal of Operations Management, 18(6), 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Teirlinck, P., & Spithoven, A. (2010). Fostering industry-science cooperation through public funding: differences between universities and public research centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–20 (published on-line).Google Scholar
  50. Uotila, M., Suomen, E. U. T., & Kehityssihteerist. (2004). Finnish participation in the EU fifth framework programme and beyond. VTT Technology Studies.Google Scholar
  51. Vonortas, N. S. (2009). Scale and scope in research. In H. Delanghe, U. Muldur, & L. Soete (Eds.), European science and technology policy: Towards integration or fragmentation?. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management Science and TechnologyAthens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations