Although resource-based theory has been widely adopted by scholars, it has been criticised for certain weaknesses in its applicability in business practice19. The theory suggests that organisations have to
develop strategic resources that are valuable, rare, non-imitable and non-substitutional to gain sustained competitive advantages without adequately explaining how to develop such resources (Priem and Butler, 2001). This study attempts to overcome the limitations of resource-based theory by extending it to provide more practical managerial implications.
Theoretically, this is one of relatively few attempts to apply resource-based theory to a specific type of strategic alliance – international R&D collaboration among SMEs. By focusing on a specific type, a number of practical implications could be derived. As shown in Table 3-4 that are based on the discussions in Section 3.5.1 and supported by the findings in Section 3.5.2, various motivations could be identified and these were linked to the resource combination process through such concepts as “collective strength”, “partner selection criteria”, and “project management practices”. As a consequence, the analysis results suggest a strategy to acquire necessary resources from overseas partners via R&D collaboration, which is based on the types of resources and resource alignment. Stepping-stone and Global-scouting have been frequently mentioned in previous studies of large enterprises, although the best way to manage collaborative projects may be different in SMEs, while Capability-building and Capability-combining may be relatively unique motivations; they reflect SMEs’ collective efforts to overcome their limitations of small size while making the best use of their specialised knowledge and skills.
19 Kraaijenbrink et al. (2010, p.351) in their critical review of the theory classified the criticisms into eight
categories: “(a) the RBV [resource-based view] has no managerial implications; (b) the RBV implies infinite regress; (c) the RBV’s applicability is too limited; (d) SCA [sustained competitive advantage] is not achievable; (e) the RBV is not a theory of the firm; (f) VRIN/O [valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable organisation] is neither necessary nor sufficient for SCA, (g) the value of a resource is too indeterminate to provide for useful theory, and (h) the definition of resource is unworkable.”
Table 3-4. Characteristics of international R&D collaboration by motivation
Capability-combining Capability-building Stepping-stone Global-scouting Collective strength System-level
innovation Future-oriented innovation Innovation for a foreign market Efficiency in innovation P artn er se lec ti o n crit eria Target partner Complementary technologies (horizontal) Similar technology interests (horizontal) Technology localisation (vertical: front-end) Complementary properties (vertical: rear-end) Expected role Co-designing and marketing products to build brand image and networks together
Co-developing innovative new products as well as co-learning
Reducing the financial resources needed to enter a foreign market
Reducing time needed to enter a market P ro jec t m an ag em en t p ra cti ce s Management
focus Clear goal-setting
Organisational learning for knowledge exchange
Frequent interaction for knowledge in- transfer Clear communication Possible conflicts Difficulties in interaction Opportunistic behaviours Different objectives of
collaboration Too much control
Methodologically, this study is distinguished from prior research in three respects: the target firm is SMEs; the unit of analysis is at project-level as well as organisational-level; and the primary focus of the analysis is on motivations – linked to the needs and conditions – which may lead to a particular set of results. The table above indicates that operational strategies for international R&D collaboration in SMEs differ by type of motivation. Thus, before starting such a collaboration, SMEs should clearly understand what kind of resources they are seeking from their partners and why. This starting requirement is also applied to intermediaries in charge of matchmaking. To achieve successful collaboration, intermediaries need to draw on partner selection criteria customised to each type of motivation.
As to external factors, it is evident that government funding has a positive influence in terms of increased motivation to engage in international R&D collaboration in line with the findings from Huergo and Moreno (2017), suggesting that direct R&D support stimulates R&D activities, and those from Hottenrott and Lopes-Bento (2014), showing that the public subsidies trigger R&D spending as well as R&D productivity especially in SMEs collaborating with international partners. However, if the international R&D collaboration was initiated by government funding, the possibility of success may decrease for two reasons. The first is at lack of desire to collaborate. One reason why SMEs decided to collaborate with at international partners was to access research funding, as mentioned by F12. As the funding for international R&D collaboration is relatively uncompetitive, it may be used to enable an SME that might otherwise have gone bankrupt to carry on, which then has a negative effect on both the collaboration partners and also the global innovation system. The second reason relates to the characteristics of the project. SMEs tended to carry out relatively challenging projects within government-funded programmes, as noted by F9. In this case, even when a project failed in terms of its performance targets, SMEs often believed that it generated a considerable amount of indirect benefits, especially networking effects, and they were more positive in assessing its success. Therefore, the effect of government spending in improving the innovation capabilities of SMEs may be debateable, in line with previous contradictory claims about the role of subsidies in private financing (David et al., 2000; Hall and
van Reenen, 2000).