Leonard H. Lynn

Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework

Abstract The technological innovation and diffusion literatures consistently suggest the importance of the institutional environment, including non-market as well as market organizations and relationships, in the commercialization of innovation. There is, however, no general framework for studying the relevant organizations and relationships as a structured system. This paper draws on organizational ecology to develop such a framework, ‘the innovation community’. The paper then suggests how the new framework could be employed in guiding research and in developing a general institutional theory of technology commercialization.

Engineering careers, job rotation, and gatekeepers in Japan and the United States

Abstract Japans employment system is generally characterized as involving infrequent moves between firms, but regular and systematic transfers within the firm. This system might be expected to result in Japanese engineers having smaller interfirm networks of professional contacts than Americans. This could impede the efficient interfirm diffusion of new technology. On the other hand Japanese engineers might be expected to have larger intrafirm networks of professional contacts. This should facilitate the intrafirm transfer of technical information. The research reported here tests the applicability of our images of Japanese career practices to engineering careers, replaces the simple dichotomous characterizations of differences between the U.S. and Japan with data suggesting the degrees of difference, and explores linkages between personnel practices and the transfer of information by engineers in both countries.

The institutional domain of technology diffusion

Marketing implications of technological innovation have received considerable attention in the recent past. In this article, Mohan Reddy, John Aram, and Leonard Lynn suggest that the institutional scope for understanding technology diffusion, in addition to supplier and user organizations and industries, should include organizations that manufacture technological complementarities, institutions that possess vertical complementary assets, and the nonmarket sector. The nonmarket sector includes trade associations, professional societies, governmental agencies, independent research agencies, and public service organizations. The authors develop a set of propositions and discuss the implications of our framework for marketers of technical products.

Technology communities and innovation communities

Abstract The technology community framework provides new insights into how technologies and organizational systems co-evolve. Little has been written by the creators of this framework, however, about community-level variables. As a result, this literature has yet to provide a good basis for addressing many of the traditional concerns of researchers and policymakers about technological innovation: e.g. how various characteristics of communities influence the speed and extent to which an innovation is used. This paper presents an alternative framework for the study of the commercialization of technology, the ‘innovation community.’ An innovation community includes the organizations involved in the commercialization of a specific technology. It comprises a superstructure of coordinating organizations and a substructure of business firms providing inputs for the innovation. Research using this framework can address either how community attributes such as size or inclusiveness of superstructure impact on the development and use of new technologies or how the attributes of new technologies can influence community attributes. The framework seems particularly suitable as a basis for comparative research.

Institutional relationships and technology commercialization: Limitations of market based policy

Abstract U.S. technology commercialization policies have focused on efforts to correct “market failures”. Policy subsidizing innovation and antitrust policy both seek to increase market efficiency and thus attain welfare gains. One problem is that these policies make conflicting assumptions about individual economic behavior. This leads to inconsistent policy. A second problem is that non-market relationships, such as those embodied in industry standard-setting bodies, professional and trade associations, and inter-institutional cooperation also influence the process of technology commercialization. A comparison of U.S. and Japanese institutional responses to the commercial potential of high definition television suggests that (1) the market approach to this technology has led to conflicting policy prescriptions in the U.S., and (2) Japanese policymakers have been more effective than their American counterparts in facilitating non-market relationships. Implications for U.S. policy are discussed.

Reshaping Global Technology Development: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in China and India

Purpose – This paper seeks to explore the processes by which the offshoring of technology development to India and China by Western and Japanese multinationals has evolved from the localization/simplification of technology for local markets to the development of advanced technology in India and China for global markets. Design/methodology/approach – Case studies were developed based on 190 interviews conducted in China, India and several other countries. Respondents included multinational home country and offshore managers, as well as local entrepreneurs. Findings – Rather than following carefully thought out corporate strategies, the offshoring of technology development by multinationals is more often incremental and driven by the ambitions and expectations of Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs and managers. Meanwhile ‘‘technology competition’’ policies proposed in the USA and elsewhere are not taking sufficient account of the processes by which technology development is being offshored. Originality/value – Techno-nationalistic policies designed to allow one country to win a race with others in developing and monopolizing new technologies are increasingly dysfunctional. The identification of multinationals with ‘‘home countries’’ continues to weaken. At the same time, technologies and technology workers are more mobile than ever before. Better policies would allow nations to seek mutual benefit through today’s more globally dispersed technology development capabilities. Multinational managers in our study were not sufficiently accounting for the costs of offshoring and outsourcing technology, nor were they giving much thought to the longer term implications of their diminishing capabilities to develop or even control the development technology. More thought should be given to what aspects of technology constitute ‘‘core competencies’’ and which provide sustainable competitive advantage in the emerging global environment.

INNOVATION SHIFT TO THE EMERGING ECONOMIES: CASES FROM IT AND HEAVY INDUSTRIES

The current shift of technology development work by multinationals to the emerging economies is distinctive, as many are now observing, though less understood are the implications for innovative capacity and location. It is now high-end (rather than adaptive) development that is being carried out in countries like India, China, Brazil and Mexico. And, increasingly, multinationals from the U.S., Japan and Europe are finding themselves competing against, or working with, new technology-based companies from the emerging economies. Our study focuses on the processes and outcomes of globally distributed engineering. Field work was carried out at 67 engineering headquarters or development sites in eight countries. The firms in our study were in IT and a range of other industries, though in this paper we concentrate on the IT and heavy industries sectors. Based on our fieldwork we conclude that this new shift in the location of technology work at the top of the value chain is not only distinctive, but it is also disjunctive, not following past trajectories of offshoring. We also find that it is occurring as a matter of incremental value chain creep, rather than being guided by “strategy.” We believe current trends are inconsistent with some widely accepted postulates and prescriptions of organization and innovation theory. We find that the consequences of these trends have not been well conceptualized by managers and policy-makers. The research described here was supported by the National Science Foundation (Societal Dimensions of Engineering, Science & Technology, SES-0431755, and the Human and Social Dynamics Programs, SES0527584), and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders.

The commercialization of the transistor radio in Japan: the functioning of an innovation community

In the 1950s, Japanese electronics firms moved from a technological level that seemed far behind their US and European rivals to dominate the first commercial markets for semiconductors. The processes by which this happened have been little studied and are not well understood. Aside from the apparent mystery of how the Japanese advanced so quickly with the technology are such related issues of importance to policymakers and managers as: did government contribute to or detract from the Japanese success? How did the major Japanese electron-tube producers, unlike their US counterparts and dominant firms in numerous other industries undergoing a major shift in technology, successfully make the transition to the new technology? This paper explores the history of the commercialization of the transistor radio, Japans first successful semiconductor product. The history is organized into a theoretical framework to help permit systematic comparison and analysis.

Technology competition policies and the semiconductor industries of Japan and the United States: a fifty-year retrospective

The dramatic changes in the fates of firms and industries involved in the production of semiconductors in the United States and Japan over the past half century have led to a large literature addressing or at least posing a number of questions. Did technology import policies, protectionism, support of research consortia, and the use of other industrial policies help or hurt the development of the Japanese industry? What were the consequences of the apparent technological discontinuities represented by the replacement of vacuum tubes by transistors, of germanium transistors by silicon transistors, of discrete transistors by integrated circuits? Have differences in industrial structure between the United States and Japan had consequences for competitiveness? This paper reviews this literature, and applies hindsight in revisiting these questions.

Cultural differences and the management of engineering in US-Japanese joint ventures

Interviews with engineers working for three US-Japanese joint ventures operating in the United States revealed several important differences in the cognitive frameworks used by US and Japanese engineers. The author interprets these differences according to concepts of cultural orientations toward information and time management developed by E.T. Hall and M.R. Hall (1987). He explains how practices and people deemed efficient in one culture may seem inefficient in another. It is noted that a failure to recognize these differences can make it difficult to evaluate people and organizations from another culture and difficult to negotiate the creation of hybrid bicultural organizations.<<ETX>>