La aplicabilidad del derecho al olvido

Table 7 lists some key characteristics of each MNE network including the dominant innovation process, MNE innovation network and control structures, subsidiary innovation mandates within the innovation network, and innovation cycle time within the respective industries of each MNE. In addition, the most predominant modes of innovation practice transfer within each MNE are listed. The typology of innovation processes is from Bartlett and Beamish (2011) which consists of local for local, center for global, locally leveraged and globally linked. As the MNEs chosen for inclusion all serve global markets, mainly consisting of other MNEs and domestic businesses, none of them

were substantially engaged in local innovation for local markets (i.e. „local for local‟).

Likewise, as the MNE networks are all geographically dispersed, „center for global‟

processes are not applicable, although given the early stage of innovation internationalization for IT Services, the majority of its innovation is currently conducted according to this mode. The two remaining types of innovation processes are locally leveraged processes which are carried out in foreign subsidiaries to serve global markets, and globally linked innovation which is carried out by an integrated group of geographically dispersed subsidiaries.

The innovation network typology employed is from Zander (1999) which classifies innovation networks according to the extent that redundant or diversified innovation capabilities are distributed internationally. Dispersed innovation networks have high degrees of both redundant and diversified capabilities distributed geographically. Internationally duplicated networks have a high degree of distributed redundant capabilities, and a low degree of diversified capabilities. Conversely, internationally dispersed networks are characterized by low levels of redundancy and high levels of capability diversification amongst geographically distributed affiliates.

Home centered networks possess low degrees of internationalization along both dimensions.

Table 7: MNE Innovation, control, subsidiary mandate, industry innovation cycle and innovation practice diffusion characteristics.

Telecom Aero Software IT Services

Innovation Process†

Globally Linked Globally Linked Globally Linked Locally Leveraged discussed or from which managers were directly interviewed in the research, and hence to which innovation practices had been transferred. Hence, other subsidiaries within the MNE not discussed in this research may play different roles, and some of the subsidiaries

included had additional mandates such as manufacturing (Aero, Latin America), sales and service (Software, Canada and Telecom, US). The innovation cycle time refers to the relative rate at which new innovations are brought to market within the industries represented by each of the MNEs. Finally, the typology of innovation practice transfer modes revealed in the case data includes (A) centrally administrated, from HQ to subsidiaries, (B) brokered, from one subsidiary to another intermediated by a manager who may or may not be affiliated with either unit, and (C) organically diffused, directly from one subsidiary to another. Only the most predominantly mentioned transfer modes are listed here. All three modes of transfer may exist within each MNE innovation network to varying degrees.

A few patterns within these sets of characteristics are worth noting. Innovation practice transfer within less centrally controlled MNE networks tends to involve less involvement from HQ. While this is not surprising, it is worth noting that in both Telecom and Software, the innovation cycles are quite fast. At Software, the only innovation practice transfer administered by HQ was lean software development, with the stated goal of reducing product development time. Hence, although not originally considered in the design phase of this study, industry may play a role in how innovation practices are diffused within the network. Faster cycle industries may involve more decentralized MNEs out of a need for responsiveness, not necessarily to local environments, but to the evolving needs of customers and new underlying technologies.

In the case of Aero, innovation practices are centrally administered because they have

been developed over the course of decades from HQ and must ensure that products developed for the aerospace industry are compliant with FAA regulations. At IT Services, the rationale for centrally administering practices is likely associated with the early stage of development of its international innovation network. At this time, only two foreign subsidiaries have been established and the priorities mentioned by both the CTO and a director involve establishing a common set of operational and reporting practices, and R&D branding.

Finally, of the three MNEs with globally linked innovation processes, only Aero‟s network is characterized as internationally duplicated. As the process and form of the innovation network may appear to be inconsistent, some explanation is warranted.

Although subsidiaries at Aero are all linked, in that each new product developed involves globally dispersed teams, the capabilities each possesses are duplicated from Aero‟s home country, the US. Although this can be interpreted as an attempt to economize on engineering, given that factor costs are different in the subsidiary local nations, the Director of Engineering in the US made a point of indicating that these locations were chosen for eventual market access. Hence, developing product design capabilities, similar to those of the US site, in order to ensure FAA compliance, can be viewed as a necessary precursor to serving local markets. As the MNE realizes cost savings in the process of accessing these markets (Maskell et al, 2007), the initial investment is justified in the short term. In order to serve local national defence markets in particular, substantial local presence is also necessary.