Strategic collaboration of R&D entities for technology convergence: Exploring organizational differences within the triple helix

Abstract Based on a contextual framework of the organizational differences between types of research and development entities, this study examines how organizational contexts affect the advent of technology convergence. It demonstrates the effects of research and development entity types and alliances using the multi-assignation analysis of technology domains and rich data on government-supported research and development programs in South Korea. The findings show that technology convergence is likely to occur when a university develops technology alone or in collaboration with another research and development actor. These results reflect the important role of incentive structure and collaboration strategies in increasing the development of converging technologies.

[1]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[2]  Christopher Freeman,et al.  Prometheus Bound: science in a dynamic steady state , 1995, European Review.

[3]  M. Carree,et al.  Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance , 2004 .

[4]  Sungjoo Lee,et al.  Inter-technology networks to support innovation strategy: An analysis of Korea’s new growth engines , 2010 .

[5]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[6]  M. Feldman,et al.  Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances , 2007 .

[7]  Daniel L. Fay,et al.  Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art , 2012, The Journal of Technology Transfer.

[8]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[9]  T. Das,et al.  A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances , 2000 .

[10]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  Converging Technologies - Shaping the Future of European Societies , 2004 .

[11]  J. Leker,et al.  Anticipating converging industries using publicly available data , 2010 .

[12]  児玉 文雄,et al.  Analyzing Japanese high technologies : the techno-paradigm shift , 1991 .

[13]  Wolfgang Becker,et al.  R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms—evidence for the German manufacturing industry , 2004 .

[14]  Fredrik Hacklin,et al.  Management of Convergence in Innovation: Strategies and Capabilities for Value Creation Beyond Blurring Industry Boundaries , 2007 .

[15]  Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsreihe,et al.  R & D cooperation and innovation activities of firms : Evidence for the German manufacturing industry , 2002 .

[16]  Yang Dong Woo,et al.  The Empirical Study on Relationship between CT R&D Subsidy Program and R&D Performance in S.korea , 2011 .

[17]  Isabel Gómez,et al.  Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[19]  Greg Tegart.  Converging technologies and their implications for technology transfer: The cases of European networks (N EuroNet) and NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno) technologies as drivers of change , 2005 .

[20]  T. D. N. Thi,et al.  Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research , 2005 .

[21]  Fr¬¥ed¬¥erique Sachwald,et al.  Co-operative R&D: why and with whom?: An integrated framework of analysis , 2003 .

[22]  A. Gillison,et al.  Research Partnerships , 2007 .

[23]  A. Gambardella,et al.  The Market for Patents in Europe , 2006 .

[24]  María Bordons,et al.  Interdisciplinarity as a multidimensional concept: its measure in three different research areas , 2001 .

[25]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations , 1998, Scientometrics.

[26]  K. Clark,et al.  Creating project plans to focus product development. , 1992, Harvard business review.

[27]  Lars Håkanson,et al.  Managing cooperative research and development: Partner selection and contract design , 1993 .

[28]  Amalya L. Oliver,et al.  Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms , 1994 .

[29]  Min-Keun Chung,et al.  Analysis on the Patterns of Technological Innovation in Korean Manufacturing Sector in accordance with Technology Intensity , 2010 .

[30]  Tuomo Kässi,et al.  BUILD-UP OF UNDERSTANDING OF TECHNOLOGICAL CONVERGENCE: EVIDENCE FROM PRINTED INTELLIGENCE INDUSTRY , 2012 .

[31]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science , 1999 .

[32]  U. Schmoch,et al.  Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields , 1998 .

[33]  Henry G. Small,et al.  A Passage Through Science: Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries , 1999, Libr. Trends.

[34]  Sukanya Kemp,et al.  Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing , 2002 .

[35]  Ammon Salter,et al.  Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance , 2003 .

[36]  Richard N. Zare,et al.  Interdisciplinary Research: From Belief to Reality , 1999, Science.

[37]  Donghoon Oh,et al.  An analysis of international cooperation in the public research and development programs of Korea , 2010 .

[38]  W. Brian Arthur,et al.  The Nature of Technology: What it Is and How it Evolves , 2009 .

[39]  N. Rosenberg.  Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry, 1840–1910 , 1963, The Journal of Economic History.

[40]  M. Carree,et al.  Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies , 2004 .

[41]  F. Kodama.  Technology fusion and the new R & D: Harvard Business Review, 70 (4), 70–78 (July/August 1992) , 1993 .

[42]  Gregor Wolbring,et al.  Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? , 2008 .

[43]  W. Greene,et al.  计量经济分析 = Econometric analysis , 2009 .

[44]  B. Kogut.  Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives , 1988 .

[45]  Greg A. Stevens,et al.  3,000 Raw Ideas = 1 Commercial Success! , 1997 .

[46]  Kara L Hall,et al.  The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[47]  D. Rhoten.  Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition , 2004 .

[48]  F. J. Rijnsoever,et al.  Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration , 2011 .

[49]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity , 2007, Scientometrics.

[50]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Structures and Strategies of Interdisciplinary Science , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[51]  D. Keeble,et al.  Technological convergence, globalisation and ownership in the UK computer industry , 2000 .

[52]  David L. Deeds,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Alliances in Biotechnology: A System of New Product Development , 2004 .

[53]  Mariko Sakakibara.  Cooperative research and development: who participates and in which industries do projects take place? , 2001 .

[54]  Yun Jong Kim,et al.  A Study on the Status and Supporting Strategy of National R&D Programs related to the Convergence Technology , 2009 .

[55]  Zong-Tae Bae,et al.  Performance and Adaptive Roles of the Government-supported Research Institute in South Korea , 1991 .

[56]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows , 2000 .

[57]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  Interdisciplinary Research and the Organization of the University: General Challenges and a Case Study , 2003 .

[58]  Brent Goldfarb,et al.  The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output , 2008 .

[59]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time , 2009, Scientometrics.

[60]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance , 2003 .

[61]  F. W. Lancaster,et al.  Types and Levels of Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research in the Sciences , 1997, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[62]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics , 1984 .

[63]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The Core Competence of the Corporation , 1990 .

[64]  Jens Leker,et al.  EMPLOYING STN ANAVIST TO FORECAST CONVERGING INDUSTRIES , 2009 .

[65]  Julie Thompson Klein,et al.  Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities , 1996 .

[66]  J. Leker,et al.  Patent indicators for monitoring convergence - examples from NFF and ICT , 2011 .

[67]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures , 1996 .

[68]  R. Tijssen.  A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research☆ , 1992 .

[69]  E. Winter.  Public Communication of Science and Technology , 2004 .

[70]  William Sims Bainbridge,et al.  Transformative Concepts in Scientific Convergence , 2006, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[71]  Michael L. Katz,et al.  Remarks on the Economic Implications of Convergence , 1996 .

[72]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory , 2000 .

[73]  B. Tether.  Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis , 2002 .

[74]  A. Sánchez,et al.  University-industry relationships in peripheral regions: The case of Aragon in Spain , 1995 .

[75]  Boo-Young Eom,et al.  Determinants of industry–academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization☆ , 2010 .

[76]  F. Malerba.  Sectoral systems of innovation and production , 2002 .

[77]  Helena M. M. Lastres,et al.  Emerging Patterns of Innovation: Sources of Japan's Technological Edge , 1994 .

[78]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  The resource‐based view of the firm: Ten years after , 1995 .