Embedding with multiple knowledge sources to improve innovation performance: the learning experience of Motorola in Brazil

This article explores how a subsidiary of a multi-national enterprise (MNE) in an emerging economy embeds with multiple knowledge sources, both in its corporate network (internal) and in the host country (external), to create the capability to undertake innovative activities. Drawing on first-hand and intra-firm field evidence over the lifetime of a subsidiary in the information and communications technology industry in Brazil (1996–2009) the article finds that: (1) Within 10 years, the case subsidiary attained advanced, near-world leading innovation performance in three technological functions: project management, software engineering and product and solutions; (2) This was an outcome of how the firm simultaneously engaged in knowledge-intensive linkages based on increased frequency of use and improved quality over time, with specific internal and external counterparts; (3) However, some counterparts and linkages were more effective than others in contributing to the subsidiary's innovation performance. Drawing on a novel approach that examines the relationship between dual embeddedness and innovative performance, this article extends our understanding of embeddedness as part of knowledge-seeking strategies of MNE-subsidiaries. It also provides new insights to deepen the analysis of the nuances of subsidiaries’ multiple embeddedness, especially in emerging economies.

[1]  John S. Edwards,et al.  Proposing a systems vision of knowledge management in emergency care , 2005, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[2]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[3]  M. Bell.  ‘Learning’ and the Accumulation of Industrial Technological Capacity in Developing Countries , 1984 .

[4]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  R. Gulati.  Alliances and networks , 1998 .

[6]  K. Pavitt.  Technologies, Products and Organization in the Innovating Firm: What Adam Smith Tells Us and Joseph Schumpeter Doesn't , 1998 .

[7]  W. Form,et al.  Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. , 1996 .

[8]  J. I. Canales,et al.  Subsidiary Strategy: The Embeddedness Component , 2007 .

[9]  F. Malerba.  Learning by Firms and Incremental Technical Change , 1992 .

[10]  M. Boisot.  Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy , 1998 .

[11]  Michael Hobday,et al.  Upgrading the technological capabilities of foreign transnational subsidiaries in developing countries: The case of electronics in Thailand , 2007 .

[12]  Joseph M. Firestone.  On doing knowledge management , 2008 .

[13]  S. Albers,et al.  Crisis Construction and Organizational Learning: Capability Building in Catching-Up at Hyundai Motor , 1998 .

[14]  Martin Bell,et al.  Firms, politics and political economy: patterns of subsidiary-parent linkages and technological capacity-building in electronics TNC subsidiaries in Malaysia , 1999 .

[15]  Stephen Young,et al.  Centralization and autonomy: back to the future , 2004 .

[16]  Mario Barcelo-Valenzuela,et al.  Defining the problem: key element for the success of knowledge management , 2008 .

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

[18]  Brent D. Beal,et al.  The Embeddedness of Organizations: Dialogue & Directions , 1999 .

[19]  A. Zaheer,et al.  Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities , 1999 .

[20]  Norlela Ariffin,et al.  Internationalization of innovative capabilities: counter‐evidence from the electronics industry in Malaysia and Brazil , 2004 .

[21]  Simona Spedale,et al.  Preservation and Dissolution of the Target Firm's Embedded Ties in Acquisitions , 2006 .

[22]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY? , 2000 .

[23]  D. Boehe,et al.  Product development in MNC subsidiaries: local linkages and global interdependencies , 2007 .

[24]  Martin Bell,et al.  Time and technological learning in industrialising countries: how long does it take? How fast is it moving (if at all)? , 2006, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[25]  Paulo N. Figueiredo,et al.  Learning, capability accumulation and firms differences: evidence from latecomer steel , 2003 .

[26]  Bodo B. Schlegelmilch,et al.  Learning from foreign subsidiaries: An empirical investigation of headquarters' benefits from reverse knowledge transfers , 2006 .

[27]  Paulo N. Figueiredo,et al.  Industrial Policy Changes and Firm-Level Technological Capability Development: Evidence from Northern Brazil , 2008 .

[28]  A. Lin.  Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy , 2001 .

[29]  P. Almeida,et al.  Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: the influence of the MNC and host country on innovation , 2004 .

[30]  Ram Mudambi,et al.  Conventional and Reverse Knowledge Flows in Multinational Corporations† , 2008 .

[31]  S. Lall.  Technological capabilities and industrialization , 1992 .

[32]  John Cantwell,et al.  MNE competence‐creating subsidiary mandates , 2005 .

[33]  Charles Dhanaraj,et al.  Managing the Embedded Multinational: A Business Network View , 2006 .

[34]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Knowledge spillover in corporate financing networks: embeddedness and the firm's debt performance , 2002 .

[35]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities , 2002 .

[36]  M. Bell,et al.  Technology spillovers from Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): the active role of MNC subsidiaries in Argentina in the 1990s , 2006 .

[37]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[38]  John Cantwell,et al.  Technological globalisation and innovative centres: the role of corporate technological leadership and locational hierarchy , 1999 .

[39]  Walter Kuemmerle,et al.  Home base and knowledge management in international ventures , 2002 .

[40]  Ulf R. Andersson,et al.  Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: a business network view , 2007 .

[41]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance , 2005 .

[42]  D. B. Duncan.  MULTIPLE RANGE AND MULTIPLE F TESTS , 1955 .

[43]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[44]  Ulf R. Andersson,et al.  The strategic impact of external networks: Subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation , 2002 .

[45]  M. Bell,et al.  Technological Accumulation and Industrial Growth: Contrasts Between Developed and Developing Countries , 1993 .

[46]  Brian Uzzi,et al.  Relational Embeddedness and Learning: The Case of Bank Loan Managers and Their Clients , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[47]  Wiliam Wiggenhorn,et al.  Motorola U: when training becomes an education , 1990 .

[48]  Nick von Tunzelmann,et al.  Technological Capabilities and Global-Local Interactions: The Electronics Industry in Two Mexican Regions , 2008 .

[49]  Norlela Ariffin.  Internationalisation of technological innovative capabilities: levels, types and speed (learning rates) in the electronics industry in Malaysia , 2010 .

[50]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Multinational Subsidiary Evolution: Capability and Charter Change in Foreign-Owned Subsidiary Companies , 1998 .

[51]  Gabriela Dutrénit.  Learning and Knowledge Management in the Firm , 2000 .

[52]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[53]  Rajneesh Narula,et al.  Multinational Enterprises, Development and Globalization: Some Clarifications and a Research Agenda , 2010 .

[54]  E. Clark,et al.  Organization-Community Embeddedness: The Social Impact of Enterprise Restructuring in the Post-Communist Czech Republic , 1998 .