|
on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Economy |
|
Issue of 2011‒03‒05
six papers chosen by Laura Stefanescu European Research Centre of Managerial Studies in Business Administration |
| By: | Done, Adrian (IESE Business School) |
| Abstract: | This paper aims to empirically investigate the impact upon performance of explicit knowledge transfer in the integrated supply chain between a manufacturer and its external suppliers and customers. Literature derived hypotheses were evaluated using International Manufacturing Strategy Survey data from 338 companies. Valid and reliable scales were created via confirmatory factor analysis, and effects upon inventory performance tested via regression techniques. Whilst knowledge transfers from upstream and downstream directions were positively related to a manufacturer's performance, knowledge derived from customers was more powerful. Furthermore, integrated knowledge transfer- the combination of knowledge emanating from both suppliers and customers- had the strongest link to performance. The implications for practioners are that integrating knowledge across supply chains could be more far reaching than the exchange of assets, data and information usually considered in supply chain literature. Furthermore the current generalized approach to managing external knowledge is inadequate. This study expands upon existing literature by including directional implications as to which knowledge inflows are most valuable. For academics, this paper supports and extends existing literature by considering the supplier-manufacturer-customer triad in unison. The focus goes beyond asset, data and information exchange towards the leveraging of external knowledge. Relevant perspectives and dimensions were adopted from the knowledge management stream in order to add conceptual depth. Several areas of knowledge-based supply chain research have been identified as potential opportunities for further investigation. |
| Keywords: | Supply Chain; Knowledge Management; Empirical Research: |
| Date: | 2011–01–17 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ebg:iesewp:d-0896&r=knm |
| By: | B. CLARYSSE; M. WRIGHT; E. VANDEVELDE |
| Abstract: | We contribute to the literature on corporate spin-offs and university spin-offs by exploring how different characteristics in the technological knowledge base at start-up influence spin-off performance. We investigate how the technological knowledge characteristics endowed at start-up predict growth, taking into account whether the knowledge / technology is transferred from a corporation or university. We use a novel, hand-collected dataset involving 48 corporate and 73 university spin-offs, comprising the population of spin-offs in Flanders during 1991-2002. We find corporate spin-offs grow most if they start with a specific narrow-focused technology sufficiently distinct from the technical knowledge base of the parent company and which is tacit. University spin-offs benefit from a broad technology which is transferred to the spin-off. Novelty of the technical knowledge does not play a role in corporate spin-offs, but has a negative impact in university spin-offs unless universities have an experienced technology transfer office to support the spin-off. |
| Keywords: | technological knowledge, corporate spin-offs, university spin-off |
| Date: | 2010–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rug:rugwps:10/693&r=knm |
| By: | Robin Cubitt (School of Economics, University of Nottingham); Robert Sugden (School of Economics, University of East Anglia) |
| Abstract: | The game-theoretic assumption of ‘common knowledge of rationality’ leads to paradoxes when rationality is represented in a Bayesian framework as cautious expected utility maximisation with independent beliefs (ICEU). We diagnose and resolve these paradoxes by presenting a new class of formal models of players’ reasoning, inspired by David Lewis’s account of common knowledge, in which the analogue of common knowledge is derivability in common reason. We show that such models can consistently incorporate any of a wide range of standards of decision-theoretic practical rationality. We investigate the implications arising when the standard of decision-theoretic rationality so assumed is ICEU. |
| Keywords: | Common reasoning; common knowledge; common knowledge of rationality; David Lewis; Bayesian models of games |
| Date: | 2011–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cdx:dpaper:2011-01&r=knm |
| By: | Kuehne, G; Llewellyn, Rick S.; Pannell, D; Wilkinson, R; Dolling, P; Ewing, M |
| Abstract: | A wealth of evidence exists about the adoption of new practices and technologies in agriculture but there does not appear to have been any attempt to simplify this vast body of research knowledge into a model to make quantitative predictions across a broad range of contexts. This is despite increasing demand from research, development and extension agencies for estimates of likely extent of adoption and the likely timeframes for project impacts. This paper reports on the reasoning underpinning the development of ADOPT (Adoption and Diffusion Outcome Prediction Tool). The tool has been designed to: 1) predict an innovationâs likely peak extent of adoption and likely time for reaching that peak; 2) encourage users to consider the influence of a structured set of factors affecting adoption; and 3) engage R, D & E managers and practitioners by making adoptability knowledge and considerations more transparent and understandable. The tool is structured around four aspects of adoption: 1) characteristics of the innovation, 2) characteristics of the population, 3) actual advantage of using the innovation, and 4) learning of the actual advantage of the innovation. The conceptual framework used for developing ADOPT is described. |
| Keywords: | Adoption, Diffusion, Prediction, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies, |
| Date: | 2011 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:aare11:100570&r=knm |
| By: | Thomas Bolli (KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich, Switzerland); Martin Woerter (KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich, Switzerland) |
| Abstract: | This paper analyzes the relationship between competition and R&D cooperation with universities and competitors. Our simple model predicts that more competitors reduce the incentives for horizontal cooperation as it diminishes the gains from “collusion”. Assuming that the value of synergies and spillovers created by cooperation depends on competition intensity reveals two distinct and opposing incentives for cooperation. While synergies foster R&D cooperation, spillovers may hinder cooperation. We mainly hypothesize that university cooperation corresponds to product innovation and hence quality competition, while horizontal cooperation lead to process innovations and therefore relates to price competition. We test these hypotheses based on Swiss firm-level panel data controlling for simultaneity of cooperation decisions and endogeneity of competition. Our empirical analysis supports the relevance of distinguishing between competition dimensions and cooperation partners, respectively. We find that price competition matters for both university and horizontal cooperation and it takes the form of an inverted U-shape. On the contrary, quality competition only matters for university cooperation and the relationship shows a U-form. Moreover we see that the number of principal competitors is significantly related only to cooperation between competitors and the relationship shows an inverted U-form. Hence, markets with a medium number of competitors are more receptive for horizontal cooperation. In sum these findings advance our understanding of the relationship between innovation and competition policy. |
| Keywords: | innovation cooperation, university cooperation, horizontal cooperation, number of competitors, price competition, quality competition, synergy, knowledge spillover, collusion |
| JEL: | O3 |
| Date: | 2011–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:kof:wpskof:11-275&r=knm |
| By: | Chu, Angus C.; Cozzi, Guido; Galli, Silvia |
| Abstract: | This study develops an R&D-based growth model that features both vertical and horizontal innovation to shed some light on the current debate on whether patent protection stimulates or stifles innovation. Specifically, we analyze the growth and welfare effects of patent protection in the form of profit division between sequential innovators along the quality ladder. We show that patent protection has asymmetric effects on vertical innovation (i.e., quality improvement) and horizontal innovation (i.e., variety expansion). Maximizing the incentives for vertical (horizontal) innovation requires a profit-division rule that assigns the entire flow profit to the entrant (incumbent) of a quality ladder. In light of this finding, we argue that in order to properly analyze the growth and welfare implications of patent protection, it is important to disentangle its different effects on vertical and horizontal innovation. |
| Keywords: | economic growth; innovation; intellectual property rights |
| JEL: | O34 O31 O40 |
| Date: | 2010–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:29061&r=knm |