Internal R&D Versus In-licensing Complements or Substitutes

This paper analyzes whether internal R&D and external R&D are substitute or complementary strategies with respect to firm innovative performance. Few studies have evaluated this issue, which is surprising since the combination of internal and external R&D investments have been emphasized extensively in the technology strategy literature. We present a two-step model that starts by testing for the proper functional form of the innovation production function. We then use the estimated specification in a profit maximization model to measure the degree of complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D. Using a unique dataset, our results suggest that these two types of R&D are complementary activities. Moreover, the degree of complementarity increases over time and it is accentuated for those firms with a higher level of

[1]  Robin C. Sickles,et al.  The CES-Translog: Specification and Estimation of a New Cost Function , 1984 .

[2]  Avi Goldfarb,et al.  Understanding the Inputs into Innovation: Do Cities Substitute for Internal Firm Resources? , 2007, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[3]  M. Ceccagnoli,et al.  Enhancing Research Productivity through the Market for Technology , 2008 .

[4]  N. Gallini Deterrence by Market Sharing: A Strategic Incentive for Licensing , 1984 .

[5]  Ignacio Fernández-de-Lucio,et al.  Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry , 2009 .

[6]  Reinhilde Veugelers,et al.  In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D and External Knowledge Acquisition , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[7]  P. Danzon,et al.  Productivity in Pharmaceutical Biotechnology R&D: The Role of Experience and Alliances , 2003, Journal of health economics.

[8]  A. Arora,et al.  The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of , 1994 .

[9]  Jiann-Chyuan Wang,et al.  External technology acquisition and firm performance: A longitudinal study , 2008 .

[10]  A. Arora Contracting for tacit knowledge: the provision of technical services in technology licensing contracts , 1996 .

[11]  Jaider Vega Jurado,et al.  Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry , 2009 .

[12]  Jack A. Nickerson,et al.  Strategic Management of R&D Pipelines with Cospecialized Investments and Technology Markets , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[13]  J. Marshall Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2004 .

[14]  A. Arora,et al.  Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy , 2004 .

[15]  J. Fagerberg,et al.  The Oxford handbook of innovation , 2006 .

[16]  Jonathan Ireland Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries , 1998 .

[17]  Andrea Fosfuri,et al.  The Penguin Has Entered the Building: The Commercialization of Open Source Software Products , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[18]  A. Gambardella Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s * , 1992 .

[19]  A. Arora,et al.  Licensing the market for technology , 2003 .

[20]  Matthew J. Higgins,et al.  The outsourcing of R&D through acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry , 2006 .

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

[22]  A. Arora,et al.  Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy , 2002 .

[23]  Nancy Gallini,et al.  The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform , 2002 .

[24]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Interorganizational Endorsements and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Ventures , 1999 .

[25]  A. Arora,et al.  Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology , 2010 .

[26]  Mcdp Mathieu Weggeman,et al.  Determinants of the Level of Knowledge Application: A Knowledge‐Based and Information‐Processing Perspective* , 2005 .

[27]  E. Helpman General purpose technologies and economic growth , 1998 .

[28]  Ashish Arora,et al.  Patent Protection, Complementary Assets, and Firms' Incentives for Technology Licensing , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[29]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[30]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms , 2006 .

[31]  Marco Ceccagnoli,et al.  Productivity and the Role of Complementary Assets in Firms’ Demand for Technology Innovations , 2009 .

[32]  Lloyd A. Jobe,et al.  Balancing vertical integration and strategic outsourcing: effects on product portfolio, product success, and firm performance , 2006 .

[33]  Andrea Shepard Licensing to Enhance Demand for New Technologies , 1987 .

[34]  G. Pisano The R&D Boundaries of the Firm: An Empirical Analysis , 1990 .

[35]  Franco Malerba,et al.  Sectoral Systems: How and Why Innovation Differs across Sectors , 2006 .

[36]  Julian Lowe,et al.  R&D and technology purchase through licence agreements: complementary strategies and complementary assets , 1998 .

[37]  Ilan Guedj Ownership vs. Contract: How Vertical Integration Affects Investment Decisions in Pharmaceutical R&D , 2005 .

[38]  Daron Acemoglu,et al.  Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry , 2003 .

[39]  Massimo Riccaboni,et al.  The Nature and the Extent of the Market for Technology in Biopharmaceuticals , 2004 .

[40]  J. Gans,et al.  Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction , 1999 .

[41]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation , 2008 .

[42]  Mary Tripsas Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry , 1997 .

[43]  R. Veugelers,et al.  COMPLEMENTARITY BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY MAKE AND BUY IN INNOVATION STRATEGIES : EVIDENCE FROM BELGIAN MANUFACTURING FIRMS , 1998 .

[44]  Sean Nicholson,et al.  Biotech-Pharmaceutical Alliances as a Signal of Asset and Firm Quality , 2002 .

[45]  H. Grabowski Patents, Innovation and Access to New Pharmaceuticals , 2002 .

[46]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth , 1979 .

[47]  Frank T. Rothaermel,et al.  Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance , 2010 .

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

[49]  T. J. Allen,et al.  Organizational structure, information technology, and R&D productivity , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[50]  F. Rothaermel Strategic Management Journal Research Note Incumbent's Advantage through Exploiting Complementary Assets via Interfirm Cooperation , 2022 .

[51]  A. Jaffe Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms&Apos; Patents, Profits and Market Value , 1986 .

[52]  J. Hicks Marginal Productivity and the Principle of Variation , 1932 .

[53]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery , 2003 .

[54]  A. Arora,et al.  COMPLEMENTARITY AND EXTERNAL LINKAGES: THE STRATEGIES OF THE LARGE FIRMS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY* , 1990 .

[55]  Ashish Arora,et al.  A Breath of Fresh Air? Firm Type, Scale, Scope, and Selection Effects in Drug Development , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[56]  Bronwyn H. Hall,et al.  Industrial Research During the 1980s: Did the Rate of Return Fall? , 1993 .

[57]  Gary P. Pisano,et al.  R&D Performance, Collaborative Arrangements and the Market for Know-How: A Test of the "Lemons" Hypothesis in Biotechnology , 1997 .