Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The impact of technology complexity on the financial performance of R&D projects: evidence from Singapore

  • 27 Accesses

Abstract

Prior empirical research is inconclusive in determining whether technology complexity influences the financial performance of research commercialization projects and how various types of organizational resources contribute to performance. We analyse research commercialization projects involving the collaboration between public research institutes and private firms in Singapore. We examine how the technology complexity of these collaborative projects impacts their financial performance, measured by the licensing fees generated. In addition, we determine how human, financial, network and senior management resources moderate the relationship between technology complexity and financial performance of the projects. Our results indicate that the relationship is inverted U-shaped and moderated by project resources. We find that PRI-firm projects with higher human, network and senior management resources are better positioned to cope with complex technologies. However, investing abundant resources in low complexity technologies reduces the financial performance of projects. Surprisingly, financial resources do not have any significant moderating effect. Our findings are relevant to scholars investigating research commercialization and academic entrepreneurship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Data retrieved from https://data.gov.sg/dataset/public-sector-research-and-development-expenditure.

  2. 2.

    Data retrieved on the 26th of June 2019 from www.singstat.gov.sg/.

  3. 3.

    Our main analyses only cover 81 projects due to a missing variable on one of the projects.

  4. 4.

    Some scholars (e.g. Kaplan and Saccuzzo 1982: 106) recommend a Cronbach’s Alpha above .7. Although the value for senior management and network resources is only marginally below this limit, some cautiousness should be applied when interpreting the results associated with these variables.

  5. 5.

    We do not report marginal effects for the moderation of financial resources due to the lack of significance of the main results.

References

  1. Adham, K. A., Kasimin, H., & Said, M. F. (2011). Biotechnology policy implementation from a systems perspective. International Journal of Economics and Management,5(1), 53–97.

  2. Amesse, F., & Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy,30(9), 1459–1478.

  3. Amsden, A. H., & Tschang, F. T. (2003). A new approach to assessing the technological complexity of different categories of R&D (with examples from Singapore). Research Policy,32(4), 553–572.

  4. Andries, P., & Faems, D. (2013). Patenting activities and firm performance: Does firm size matter? Journal of Product Innovation Management,30(6), 1089–1098.

  5. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change,10(2), 419–451.

  6. Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in business strategy and economic performance. Organization Science,20(2), 410–421.

  7. AUTM. (2010). The AUTM licensing survey: Fiscal year 2010. Norwalk, CT: Association of University Technology Managers.

  8. Badawy, M. K. (2007). Managing human resources. Research-Technology Management,50(4), 56–74.

  9. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  10. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,17(1), 99–120.

  11. Belderbos, R., Faems, D., Leten, B., & Van Looy, B. (2010). Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms? Journal of Product Innovation Management,27, 869–882.

  12. Bellavitis, C., Filatotchev, I., & Souitaris, V. (2017). The impact of investment networks on venture capital firm performance: A contingency framework. British Journal of Management,28(1), 102–119.

  13. Bellavitis, C., Rietveld, J., & Filatotchev, I. (2019). The Effects of prior co-investments on the performance of VC syndicates: A relational agency perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1320.

  14. Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy,42(1), 117–127.

  15. Bettis, R. A., Bradley, S. P., & Hamel, G. (1992). Outsourcing and industrial decline. Academy of Management Executive,6(1), 7–22.

  16. Bishop, K., D’Este, P., & Neely, A. (2011). Gaining from interactions with universities: Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity. Research Policy,40(1), 30–40.

  17. Blichfeldt, B. S., & Eskerod, P. (2008). Project portfolio management—There’s more to it than what management enacts. International Journal of Project Management,26(4), 357–365.

  18. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science,52(1), 68–82.

  19. Certo, S. T., Lester, R. H., Dalton, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2006). Top management teams, strategy and financial performance: A meta-analytic examination. Management Studies,43, 813–839.

  20. Chai, S., & Shih, W. (2016). Bridging science and technology through academic–industry partnerships. Research Policy,45(1), 148–158.

  21. Chang, S. J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies,41(2), 178–184.

  22. Cheah, S. (2016). Framework for measuring research and innovation impact. Innovation,18(2), 212–232.

  23. Cheah, S., & Ho, Y. P. (2019). Coworking and sustainable business model innovation in young firms. Sustainability,11(10), 2959.

  24. Cheah, S., Ho, Y. P., & Lim, P. (2016). Role of public science in fostering the innovation and startup ecosystem in Singapore. Asian Research Policy,7(1), 78–93.

  25. Cheah, S., & Yu, C. (2016). Assessing economic impact of research and innovation originating from public research institutions and universities—Case of Singapore PRIs. Triple Helix,3(6), 1–36.

  26. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

  27. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  28. Chuma, H. (2006). Increasing complexity and limits of organization in the microlithography industry: Implications for science-based industries. Research Policy,35(3), 394–411.

  29. Cockburn, I. M. (2009). Intellectual property rights and pharmaceuticals: Challenges and opportunities for economic research. In R. Towse & R. Holzhauer (Eds.), The economics of intellectual property (pp. 150–173). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  30. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective of learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,35(1), 128–152.

  31. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science,48(1), 1–23.

  32. Cooper, L. G. (2000). Strategic marketing planning for radically new products. Journal of Marketing,64(1), 1–16.

  33. Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing,9(5), 371–395.

  34. Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1995). Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management,12(5), 374–391.

  35. Del Canto, J. G., & Gonzalez, I. S. (1999). A resource-based analysis of the factors determining a firm’s R&D activities. Research Policy,28(8), 891–905.

  36. Dooley, L., & Kenny, B. (2015). Research collaboration and commercialization: The Ph.D. candidate perspective. Industry and Higher Education,29, 93–110.

  37. Du, J., Leten, B., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2014). Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners. Research Policy,43(5), 828–840.

  38. Edmondson, A. C., Winslow, A. B., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2003). Learning how and learning what: Effects of tacit and codified knowledge on performance improvement following technology adoption. Decision Sciences,34(2), 197–224.

  39. Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy,38(1), 96–105.

  40. Faems, D., De Visser, M., Andries, P., & Van Looy, B. (2010). Technology alliance portfolios and financial performance: Value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,27, 785–796.

  41. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy,30(7), 1019–1039.

  42. Friedrich, R. (1982). In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science,26(4), 797–833.

  43. Galbraith, C. S. (1990). Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high-technology firms. California Management Review,32(4), 56–70.

  44. Gao, G., Gopal, A., & Agarwal, R. (2010). Contingent effects of quality signaling: Evidence from the Indian offshore IT services industry. Management Science,56(6), 1012–1029.

  45. García-Muiña, F. E., & Pelechano-Barahona, E. (2008). The complexity of technological capital and legal protection mechanisms. Journal of Intellectual Capital,9(1), 86–104.

  46. Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science,11(2), 183–196.

  47. Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy,34(1), 47–68.

  48. Gomez, J., & Vargas, P. (2009). The effect of financial constraints, absorptive capacity and complementarities on the adoption of multiple process technologies. Research Policy,38(1), 106–119.

  49. Goossen, M. C., & Bradonjic, P. T. (2014). Asymmetric knowledge transfer in R&D alliances. Academy of Management Proceedings,2014(1), 12547.

  50. Griffin, A. (1997). The effect of project and process characteristics on product development cycle time. Journal of Marketing Research,34(1), 24–35.

  51. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 Years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy,40(8), 1045–1057.

  52. Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & Zi-Lin, H. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal,37(7), 1177–1195.

  53. Hagedoorn, J., & Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: The preferences for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies,39(2), 167–188.

  54. Hertzfeld, H. R., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). Intellectual property mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy,35(6), 825–838.

  55. Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organization: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy,29, 871–893.

  56. Hoegl, M., Gibbert, M., & Mazursky, D. (2008). Financial constraints in innovation projects: When is less more? Research Policy,37(8), 1382–1391.

  57. Horta, H., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). Skilled unemployment and the creation of academic spin-offs: A recession-push hypothesis. Journal of Technology Transfer,41(4), 798–817.

  58. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal,33(4), 692–724.

  59. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (1982). Psychological testing: Principles, applications and issues. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

  60. Kim, J., & Wilemon, D. (2003). Sources and assessment of complexity in NPD projects. R&D Management,33(1), 15–30.

  61. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science,3(3), 383–397.

  62. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology,58(2), 281–342.

  63. Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,31(4), 833–863.

  64. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,27(2), 131–150.

  65. Lee, J. S., Park, J. H., & Bae, Z. T. (2017). The effects of licensing-in on innovative performance in different technological regimes. Research Policy,46(2), 485–496.

  66. Lhuillery, S., & Pfister, E. (2009). R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data. Research Policy,38(1), 45–57.

  67. Lin, B. (2003). Technology transfer as technological learning: A source of competitive advantage for firms with limited R&D resources. R&D Management,33(3), 327–341.

  68. Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,72(1), 109–118.

  69. Madhok, A. (2002). Reassessing the fundamentals and beyond: Ronald Coase, the transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm and the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management Journal,23(6), 535–550.

  70. Mastrogiorgio, M., & Gilsing, V. (2016). Innovation through exaptation and its determinants: The role of technological complexity, analogy making & patent scope. Research Policy,45(7), 1419–1435.

  71. Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics,47(2), 345–362.

  72. Moon, B. (2019). Strategic R&D projects choice of the firm: Theory and evidence from Korea. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1644310.

  73. Motohashi, K. (2008). Licensing or not licensing? An empirical analysis of the strategic use of patents by Japanese firms. Research Policy,37(9), 1548–1555.

  74. Mu, J., & Di Benedetto, A. (2012). Networking capability and new product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,59(1), 4–19.

  75. Muscio, A. (2007). The impact of absorptive capacity on SMEs’ collaboration. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,16(8), 653–668.

  76. Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Ramaciotti, L. (2016). The effects of university rules on spinoff creation: The case of academia in Italy. Research Policy,45, 1386–1396.

  77. Nieto, M., & Quevedo, P. (2005). Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers, and innovative effort. Technovation,25(10), 1141–1157.

  78. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  79. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy,34(7), 994–1009.

  80. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(5), 879–903.

  81. Raesfeld, A. V., Geurts, P., Jansen, M., Boshuizen, J., & Luttge, R. (2012). Influence of partner diversity on collaborative public R&D project outcomes: A study of application and commercialization of nanotechnologies in the Netherlands. Technovation,32(3), 227–233.

  82. Ramaciotti, L., Muscio, A., & Rizzo, U. (2017). The impact of hard and soft policy measures on new technology-based firms. Regional Studies,51(4), 629–642.

  83. Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation,28(8), 506–517.

  84. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal,53(3), 617–635.

  85. RIETI (Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry). (2004). Report on RIETI’s survey on external collaboration in R&D for Japanese firms (in Japanese).

  86. Salomon, R., & Martin, X. (2008). Learning, knowledge transfer, and technology implementation performance: A study of time-to-build in the global semiconductor industry. Management Science,54(7), 1266–1280.

  87. Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Kay, L. (2011). Building capabilities for innovation in SMEs: A cross-country comparison of technology extension policies and programmes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development,3(3–4), 254–272.

  88. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy,32, 27–48.

  89. Simsek, Z. (2007). CEO tenure and organizational performance: An intervening model. Strategic Management Journal,28, 653–662.

  90. Singh, K. (1997). The impact of technological complexity and interfirm cooperation on business survival. Academy of Management Journal,40(2), 339–367.

  91. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,18(7), 509–533.

  92. Terwiesch, C., & Bohn, R. E. (2001). Learning and process improvement during production ramp-up. International Journal of Production Economics,70(1), 1–19.

  93. Thurbon, E. (2015). The abandonment of procurement-linked strategic activism in Australia: Standing still with room to move. Australian Journal of International Affairs,69(5), 577–594.

  94. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science,48(1), 90–104.

  95. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2011). Has the Bayh–Dole act compromised basic research? Research Policy,40(8), 1077–1083.

  96. Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy,24(3), 419–440.

  97. Unger, B. N., Kock, A., Gemünden, H. G., & Jonas, D. (2012). Enforcing strategic fit of project portfolios by project termination: An empirical study on senior management involvement. International Journal of Project Management,30(6), 675–685.

  98. Wang, Q., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2000). Complexity and the functions of the firm: Breadth and depth. Research Policy,29(7–8), 805–818.

  99. Wang, Y., Zhou, Z., & Li-Ying, J. (2013). The impact of licensed-knowledge attributes on the innovation performance of licensee firms: Evidence from the Chinese electronic industry. Journal of Technology Transfer,38(5), 699–715.

  100. West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy,43(5), 805–811.

  101. Wiersema, M. F., & Bowen, H. P. (2009). The use of limited dependent variable techniques in strategy research: Issues and methods. Strategic Management Journal,30(6), 679–692.

  102. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  103. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,27, 185–203.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Mr Philip Lim, the Chief Executive Officer of Accelerate Technologies Pte Ltd, for his support of the study.

Author information

Correspondence to Cristiano Bellavitis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheah, S., Bellavitis, C. & Muscio, A. The impact of technology complexity on the financial performance of R&D projects: evidence from Singapore. J Technol Transf (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09777-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Technology complexity
  • Performance
  • Singapore
  • Public research institution
  • Academic entrepreneurship

JEL Classification

  • M10
  • O31
  • O32
  • O34