Systemic innovation in a distributed network: the case of Danish wind turbines, 1972—2007

What motivates firms to engage in shared innovation activities in complex technologies, where appropriation of value is interdependent on others? Transaction cost economics prescribes that innovations that are complex and systemic in nature should not be distributed among several actors. Here the firm is clearly the locus of innovation. Opposed to this, the network-based view suggests that a distributed organization may be the most efficient way to organize innovative processes under uncertain and rapidly changing conditions and that, because the locus of innovation is the collaborative network, firms are forced to join in order to stay informed. However, these two contrasting views both overlook the complexities of real-life activities. Understanding that firms' motives and propensity to collaborate are contingent on and evolve as industries evolve is the key to understanding their attitude towards sharing and co-developing knowledge.

[1]  O. Williamson.  The Theory of the Firm as Governance Structure: From Choice to Contract , 2002 .

[2]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[3]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues , 2002 .

[4]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[5]  B. Nooteboom.  Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies , 2000 .

[6]  Niels I. Meyer,et al.  Danish energy reform: policy implications for renewables , 2003 .

[7]  H. Thorelli.  Networks: Between Markets and Hierarchies , 1986 .

[8]  K. Weick.  Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems , 1976, Gestión y Estrategia.

[9]  M. Lounsbury.  A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice Variation In the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds , 2007 .

[10]  P. Bourdieu,et al.  实践与反思 : 反思社会学导引 = An invitation to reflexive sociology , 1994 .

[11]  Gabi Dei Ottati,et al.  Cooperation and competition in the industrial district as an organization model , 1994 .

[12]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[13]  J. K. Benson.  The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy , 1975 .

[14]  R. Garud,et al.  Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economies of Substitution , 1997 .

[15]  Sharan B. Merriam,et al.  Qualitative research and case study applications in education , 1998 .

[16]  Oliver E. Williamson,et al.  Economics of Antitrust: Transaction Cost Considerations , 1974 .

[17]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  An Overview of Innovation , 2009 .

[18]  W. Starbuck,et al.  Which Dreams Come True? Endogeneity, Industry Structure and Forecasting Accuracy , 2003 .

[19]  G. Hamel.  Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances , 1991 .

[20]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[21]  Danmark som Wind Power Hub: mellem virkelighed og mulighed , 2006 .

[22]  A. Giddens.  The Constitution of Society , 1985 .

[23]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizing for Innovation , 1999 .

[24]  D. Bailin.  Field theory , 1979, Nature.

[25]  M. Lounsbury.  Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy and the Acquisition of Resources , 2001 .

[26]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[27]  J. Bruner.  Acts of meaning , 1990 .

[28]  R. Grant,et al.  Knowledge and the firm: Overview , 1996 .

[29]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[30]  J. H. Dyer,et al.  Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case , 2000 .

[31]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[32]  J. Martin,et al.  What Is Field Theory?1 , 2003, American Journal of Sociology.

[33]  D. Teece,et al.  Organizing for innovation: When is virtual virtuous? , 2002 .

[34]  Linda S. Gilbert,et al.  Going the distance: 'Closeness' in qualitative data analysis software , 2002 .

[35]  C. Hardy,et al.  Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions , 2002 .

[36]  W. Creed,et al.  Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective , 2002 .

[37]  E. Lorenz.  Trust, Contract and Economic Cooperation , 1999 .

[38]  Stuart Jay Deutsch,et al.  Organizational Effectiveness: A Multiple-Constituency Approach , 1980 .

[39]  N. Foss,et al.  Competitive Advantage and Industry Capabilities , 1995 .

[40]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[41]  E. Shils.  The Constitution Of Society , 1982 .

[42]  Peter Maskell,et al.  Towards a Knowledge‐based Theory of the Geographical Cluster , 2001 .

[43]  G. Richardson.  The Organization of Industry Re-visited , 2002 .

[44]  B. Dalum.  National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning , 1992 .