Maximilian von Zedtwitz

New Concepts and Trends in International R&D Organization

Abstract The globalization of markets, the regionalization of technical and scientific expertise, and the rapid change in technologies are forcing technology-based companies to continuously adjust their R&D organization. Our study of 33 companies reveals five different types of R&D organization in multinational companies (MNC). We classified R&D organizations according to the dispersion of R&D activities and the degree of cooperation between individual R&D units and identified the ethnocentric centralized, the geocentric centralized, the polycentric decentralized, the R&D hub, and the integrated R&D network organization. Five trends of organizational change among these forms of international R&D organization were identified: (1) Stronger orientation of R&D activities towards international markets and knowledge centers, (2) Establishment of tightly coordinated listening posts, (3) Strengthening and reinforcement of foreign R&D sites, (4) Increased integration of decentralized R&D units, and (5) Tighter coordination and recentralization of R&D activities at fewer know-how centers. The search for the optimal balance between coordination and control is reflected by hybrid structures and intermediary configurations detected in some of the investigated companies. Since effective changes in behavioral orientation require considerable time, successful quantum leaps in multinational R&D organization are next to impossible.

Organizational Learning through Post-project Reviews in R&D

Post-project reviews are one opportunity to systematically improve performance in subsequent projects. However, a survey reveals that only one out of five RD process-related factors such as project management are rarely discussed. In this paper we review the role of post-project meetings as a tool to improve organizational learning at the group level. Based on 27 in-depth interviews with R&D managers carried out between 1997 and 2001, we categorize four classes of learning impediments. These difficulties are not easily resolved, as is illustrated by examples from Hewlett-Packard, DaimlerChrysler, SAP, Unisys, the US Army, and others. We propose a five-level post-project review capability maturity model, identifying some of the key capabilities that need to be in place in order to advance to the next process maturity level. Most companies reside on the first or second maturity level. Our conclusion is that many companies give away great potential for competence building by neglecting post-project reviews as a tool for systematic inter-project learning.

Architecting gloCal (global–local), real-virtual incubator networks (G-RVINs) as catalysts and accelerators of entrepreneurship in transitioning and developing economies: lessons learned and best practices from current development and business incubation practices

Entrepreneurship is at the heart of sustainable, organic growth for most developed, as well as transitioning and developing economies and incubators have often served as catalysts and even accelerators of entrepreneurial clusters formation and growth. Our premise is that this may be more so in less developed economies where incubators can help bridge knowledge, digital, socio-political and even cultural divides and help increase the availability, awareness, accessibility and affordability of financial, human, intellectual, and even social capital, the key ingredients of entrepreneurial success. Incubation has recently experienced increased attention as a model of start-up facilitation. Venture capitalists see incubators as a means to diversify risky investment portfolios, while would-be entrepreneurs approach incubators for start-up support. Incubators are faced with the challenge and the opportunity of managing both investment risks, as well as entrepreneurial risks. As an indication of their usefulness, more than a thousand incubators have been established in the last few years based on a number of different incubation business models (not-for-profit, for-profit, public/private entity, etc.), which we categorize in five incubator archetypes: the university incubator, the independent commercial incubator, the regional business incubator, the company-internal incubator, and the virtual incubator. In this paper, we propose an overarching incubator model that synthesizes elements and best practices emanating from the five archetypes empirically identified and also incorporates substantially higher economies of scale and scope, as well as global and local (gloCal) knowledge arbitrage potential. This paper presents an architectural blueprint for designing a gloCal, real and virtual network of incubators (G-RVIN) as a knowledge and innovation infra-structure and infra-technology which would link entrepreneurs and micro-entrepreneurs with local, regional, and global networks of customers, suppliers and complementors and thus help not only bridge, but also leverage, the diverse divides (digital, knowledge, cultural, socio-political, etc.). The implications of this archetype of new ventures incubation for facilitating both venture business activity and broad-based economic development are discussed and early findings from pilot projects in central and eastern Europe are discussed.

Organization of industrial R&D on a global scale

Although the globalization of industrial R&D processes has increasingly attracted management scientists and considerable work on R&D internationalization has been done since the 70s, important problems in organizing geographically distributed R&D sites have not yet been resolved. This analysis is based on 165 interviews in 31 technology-based multinationals from Switzerland, Germany, USA, and Japan conducted between 1994 and 1997. We describe the extent of R&D internationalization, its key drivers and principal impediments. Two trends are identified: (i) a geographic concentration on leading technology centres, and (ii) a tightened coordination of R&D units. Overlaying structures, superimposed to regional and functional structures, play a central role in overcoming current deficits in global R&D management. Organizational constituents of this structure are technology offices (Schering), technology management as a competence center (Schindler), central project offices (IBM), central project management (Bayer), project oriented career development (Bosch), virtual project management departments (Roche), and cross-cultural job rotation (ATR).

Classification and management of incubators: aligning strategic objectives and competitive scope for new business facilitation

Incubation has recently attracted increased attention as a model of start-up facilitation. Venture capitalists see incubators as a means to diversify risky investment portfolios, and would-be entrepreneurs approach incubators for start-up support. Incubators face the challenge of managing both investment risks and entrepreneurial risks. More than a thousand incubators have been established in the last few years, most of them as regional business incubators. But new types of incubators are emerging. These incubators pursue different strategic objectives, apply different skills and competencies, and serve different markets. As a consequence, they have developed a new understanding of their sources of competitive advantage and business models. Based on 41 interviews with incubation and R&D managers, this paper outlines five incubator archetypes: the university incubator, the independent commercial incubator, the regional business incubator, the company-internal incubator and the virtual incubator. We describe a generic incubator business model, which is refined for different value propositions to customers and other major stakeholders. We conclude that whether an incubator is for profit or not, it should be run as a business. We also summarise some implications for operational and strategic management of incubators, as well as policy and strategy considerations for universities, venture capitalists, municipalities, corporations and other parent institutions of incubators.

Managing Foreign R&D in China

OVERVIEW: China has become one of the most desired locations in which to do R&D. However, it has little innovation of its own, and intellectual property protection is weak. This raises questions: Is China R&D more hype than reality? Do cost advantages really outweigh the risk of losing technology to Chinese competitors? Lessons learned from managing R&D in China show that in order to avoid the typical pitfalls of managing R&D in a developing country, any China-based R&D must be part of an overall China strategy and must also be part of a global R&D effort.

Innovation Processes in Transnational Corporations

Abstract: If innovation is considered as a process, then the differentiation of the innovation process into two phases creates several benefits. These two phases are, firstly, a pre-project phase fostering creativity and effectiveness, and a secondly a discipline-focused phase to ensure efficiency of implementation. This differentiation enables transnational companies to replicate and scale innovation efforts more easily in remote locations, exploiting both economies of scale and scope. Although the characteristics of these phases are quite distinct, few companies have consistent and differentiated techniques to manage and lead the overall innovation effort specific to each phase.

How Technology-Based University Research Drives Innovation in Europe and China – Leveraging the Power of Proximity

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess how technology-based university research drives innovation in Europe and China. Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws on extensive theoret ...

Offshoring of Intangibles: Organizational and Strategic Issues

*Department of Management, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, **Department of Engineering Science and Methods, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy, Department of Business, Statistical, Technological and Environmental Sciences (DASTA), University G. d’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, Italy, Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU), University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, {School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

Differences in orientations between Western European and Chinese service organizations

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to extend knowledge of differences between Western European and Chinese service organizations in typical manufacturing companies.Design/methodology/approach – The paper combines qualitative and quantitative research approaches. The qualitative study involved 23 minicases with Swiss manufacturing companies which operate a service organization in Western Europe and China. The results of the minicases were validated externally by using factor and discriminant analysis.Findings – The results suggest that the service orientation of corporate culture, human resource management and the entire organization is significantly lower in Chinese service organizations than in their Western European counterparts, leading to significantly lower financial service‐related performance outcomes.Research limitations/implications – For service management theorists, the findings suggest that increasing financial service‐related performance outcomes in China is affected to a high degree by C...