عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:

ترجمه عنوان مقاله: نوآوری مخاطره آمیز: تاثیر استراتژی های داخلی و خارجی تحقیق و توسعه برتوزیع سود

رشته: مدیریت استراتژیک

سال انتشار: 2013

تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی: 7 صفحه

منبع: الزویر و ساینس دایرکت

نوع فایل: pdf

دانلود دانلود اصل مقاله

چکیده انگلیسی مقاله

External innovation increases the profits of the median firm, but also increases dispersion and the kurtosis of the distribution of profits. This means that external strategies are risky and may require a very large number of attempts before average returns are obtained. This puts smaller firms into a position of disproportionately high risk. Despite the earlier evidence that the rewards from innovation are positively skewed, we find no effect of innovation strategies upon the skewness of the distribution of firms’ profits.

Keywords: Risk, Innovation, Research and development, Firm performance

مقدمه انگلیسی مقاله

Both managers and policy makers with responsibility for innovation at the firm and the country levels are interested in knowing the impact of pursuing different innovation strategies. A specific classification of innovation strategies that has received recent attention is the one that distinguishes between internal and external strategies. While it is well known that external sourcing and internal production are often used by firms in many areas of activity, the tendency for firms to use external sources of knowledge in their search for innovation is relatively recent (see Chesbrough, 2003) and a small but growing literature has started investigating the impact of these strategies upon innovation outcomes and performance (Cassiman and Veugelers, 2006; Lokshin et al., 2008).
This research has found that external R&D is productive in the sense that firms using external sources for their R&D strategies have better innovation outcomes, in particular if firms also undertake R&D in-house.
However, not all research outcomes translate into profits. Studies that have examined more than one dimension of the research outcomes have found that the determinants of the creation and appropriation of value are not the same as those of the number of innovations or of sales of innovative products. For example, Belderbos et al. (2004) found the determinants of labor productivity growth and growth in sales of new and innovative products to be different, while Okamuro (2007) found that technological and commercial success have different determinants.
Most of the research into the impact of alternative knowledge acquisition strategies has focused on how the changes in one variable of interest affect the mean performance of firms. However, the distribution of profits from innovation has been shown to be highly skewed, a small minority of innovations accounting for a disproportionate share of profits (Scherer and Harhoff, 2000). Given this typical shape of the distributions of gains from innovation, it  is possible that different innovation strategies generate different distributions of performance. Knowing that a strategy may yield enormous returns in the few cases in which it works well is not the same as knowing that a strategy works well in most of the cases and provides positive albeit limited returns.
In this paper we move beyond asking if different innovation strategies display different results on average, and we also ask questions such as: Do the different innovation strategies present different degrees of risk? Is one strategy more or less likely to create breakthroughs evinced by a more skewed distribution of performance?
Is one strategy more likely to generate distributions of performance with many outliers? In other words, we ask whether these strategies affect the variability, the skew, and the heaviness of the tails of the resulting distributions. A simple way of attempting to answer such questions would be to compare distributions of returns for firms following different innovation strategies. This, however, would not take into account that firms are different in many dimensions other than research strategy. In order to control for these differences our empirical strategy is based on quantile regressions, which we use to compare the outcomes of internal and external innovation strategies against those of firms that do not pursue any formal innovation efforts. Quantile regressions provide a methodology for estimating the impact of a given variable upon different points of the distribution of interest, while controlling for other variables of interest (see Koenker, 2005 for a survey). We estimate quantile regressions for a wide range of quantiles of firm performance and, based on these estimates, we compute the impact of the innovation strategies upon measures of dispersion, skewness, and kurtosis of the distributions of performance.
There are important implications from this knowledge. Even if a handful of firms benefit and the gains of those that benefit are large enough, from the society’s point of view it should be desirable to pursue such strategies, as the losses of the many would be more than compensated by the gains of the few. However, if this is so, risk averse managers may not wish to engage in this type of activity, especially if their firms are small and lack the means to enter into a myriad of projects simultaneously. This may be particularly true if the strategies that lead to a breakthrough with high probability can also cause high losses with high probability. Managers may refrain from pursuing this strategy if they run the risk of being evaluated by the outcome of a few projects only. In such a case, policies should be designed to lead firms into activities that will lead to failure with very high probability. If most firms benefit, these policies are less needed. Even if distribution of gains is relatively symmetric, firms may be deterred from pursuing innovations if the distributions of gains have a very high kurtosis. In this case, the problem is not that only a handful of firms benefit but rather that, even if one average innovation pays off, the rate of convergence to the mean may be too slow and a firm may be required to engage in too many projects in order to have a reasonable degree of assurance of reaching positive outcomes. Concentration of research, or other mechanisms that offer some form of risk protection, seem to be needed if this is the case.
Our findings indicate that innovation strategies affect the performance of firms in more ways than commonly recognized. In particular, external innovation strategies are significantly associated with increases in median profits relative to firms that do not conduct R&D. They are also significantly associated with increases in dispersion of profits and with kurtosis, reflecting the fact that external innovation strategies increase the likelihood of very extreme outcomes. No significant effect upon the skew of the profit distribution is detected, however. The same pattern holds for internal strategies, but the effects are estimated to be smaller and not statistically significant.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the rationale for innovation strategies having an impact upon performance and the previous evidence on the topic. Section 3 presents the methodology. In Section 3.1 we discuss the quantile regression framework that is employed in the analysis and highlight how it can be used to help shed light on the impact of strategies upon the entire distribution of profit rather than on a single point of this distribution. Section 3.2 presents the data and Section 4 the results. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper.

دانلود ترجمه مقاله