Las curiosas aventuras de Peter Pan en el mundo del
4. Peter Pan y el cine español
4.1. El siniestro tío Peter
FRANCE
FIGURE 4.4 Innovative positions of countries in the pharmaceutical industry, 1800–1993
Source: Derived from Achilladelis, B. and N. Antonakis (2001) ‘The dynamics of technological inno-vation: the case of the pharmaceutical industry’, Research Policy, 30, 535–588.
firms. They also rely more heavily in-house on informal rather than formal R&D.
Smaller firms also make less frequent use of outside sources of knowledge (R&D and licences) than larger firms, reflecting their limited capacity to absorb outside knowl-edge. Above all, small firms depend more than others for their innovations on their suppliers of machinery and materials, in which the innovations are embodied.
These conclusions are reinforced and extended by a survey in Canada,54 covering 1500 small industrial firms distinguished by their strong growth performance (their average annual sales were $6.6m., and their average employment 44 people). Accord-ing to their managers:
• Only 9.3% performed their own R&D, 10.4% introduced their product innovations and 5.4% their own process innovations.
• The three major sources of innovation were customers, suppliers and internal man-agement – formal R&D was considered much less important.
• About 55% of firms introduced innovations from one of these sources.
• The main factors contributing to growth are the skills in management, labour and marketing.
• Their distinctive competence is in product quality, flexibility and customer services.
Thus, the opportunities for innovation in small firms are strongly influenced by the innovativeness of their suppliers. We shall also see in Chapter 5 that small firms in some important sectors (like machinery) are also strongly influenced by the innova-tiveness of their customers. In both cases personal contacts with, and close geograph-ical proximity to, suppliers and customers reinforce and augment the effectiveness of innovation in small firms. So do the quality and skills of the local labour force. As a consequence, a small firm’s innovativeness is strongly conditioned by the national and regional context in which it finds itself embedded. Examples of the regional concen-TABLE 4.15 Frequency and sources of innovation, by firm size (France, 1993/94)
Firm Innovating Sources of innovation (%)
size firms (%)
Own Part-time Outside Licences Machine Material R&D R&D R&D suppliers suppliers
20–49 55 16 25 10 5 26 18
50–99 66 19 25 10 5 23 16
100–199 70 21 25 11 5 22 16
200–499 80 24 24 12 6 20 15
500–1999 86 26 23 13 6 19 14
2000+ 96 25 21 14 6 18 14
Sources: ‘L’innovation technologique’, Min. de l’Industrie (1994); Kaminski, P. (1994) ‘Le cas partic-ulier de la micro-entreprise’, INSEE, France.
tration of innovative small firms include not only Silicon Valley in northern California, but also the small machinery firms linked to large firms like Robert Bosch and Daimler Benz in Baden-Württemberg, and the ‘industrial districts’ producing textiles in Italy.55 In addition, small-firm clusters are now emerging in the provision of software-based services.
4.5 Summary and Further Reading
In formulating and executing their innovation strategies, business firms cannot ignore the national systems of innovation in which they are embedded. Through their strong influences on demand and competitive conditions, the provision of human resources, and forms of corporate governance, national systems of innovation both open oppor-tunities and impose constraints on what firms can do.
However, although firms’ technological strategies are influenced by their own national systems of innovation, they are not determined by them. In an analysis of more than 400 of the world’s largest firms, only part of the variance between firms in their share of corporate resources devoted to innovative activities could be explained by their prod-ucts and by their country of origin: a considerable share of the differences reflects the discretionary decisions by managers on the proportion of corporate resources to be devoted to innovative activities.56
In deciding how to cope with competitors’ technology, there are a variety of useful and accessible public sources of information on firms’ innovative activities. Bench-marking is more rewarding, since it makes detailed comparisons between specific firms and identifies specific factors for improvement. It is also more difficult and costly, given problems of access, comparability and interpretation. Learning (i.e. assimilating knowl-edge) from competitors is both essential for the firm’s own innovative activities, and costly since it requires extensive investment in R&D, reverse engineering and related training. There are no readily applicable recipes for translating a technological lead into commercial success. This depends in part on what management itself does, by way of investing in complementary assets in production, marketing and after-sales. It also depends on a variety of factors that make the pioneering innovation more or less dif-ficult to imitate, and over which management can sometimes have very little influence.
There are a number of texts which describe and compare different systems of national innovation policy, including National Innovation Systems (Oxford University Press, 1993), edited by Richard Nelson; National Systems of Innovation (Pinter, London, 1992) edited by B.-A. Lundvall; and Systems of Innovation: Technologies, institutions and organisations (Pinter, 1997) edited by Charles Edquist. The former is stronger on US
policy, the other two on European, but all have an emphasis on public policy rather than corporate strategy. Bo Carlsson (ed.) and his colleagues have developed the notion of sectoral systems of innovation in Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The case of factory automation (Kluwer, 1995); Michael Porter’s The Competitive Advantage of Nations (Macmillan, London, 1990) provides a useful framework in which to examine the direct impact on corporate behaviour of innovation systems. At the other extreme, David Landes’ Wealth and Poverty of Nations (Little Brown, 1998), takes a broad (and stimulating) historical view of the subject.
The literature on analysing and benchmarking competitors’ innovative capability is less well developed. One of the pioneering texts is Camp’s (1989) Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance (Quality Press, Mil-waukee, 1989), and more recent are the excellent series of publications by Chris Voss and his colleagues, M. Zairi Benchmarking for Best Practice (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996) and J. Tidd (ed.) From Knowledge Management to Strategic Competence: Measuring technological, market and organizational innovation (Imperial College Press, 2000). Pub-lished comparisons of corporate innovative activities are becoming increasingly fre-quent, for example the annual comparisons of The R&D Scoreboard (Table 4.9).
The best analysis of the strategic advantages of being a technological leader or fol-lower remains Teece’s 1986 paper. The surveys by Arundel, Levin and their colleagues are rich sources of information on corporate experience in assimilating technological knowledge and on how to maintain innovative leads. Comprehensive and balanced reviews of the arguments and evidence for product leadership versus follower positions is provided by G. J. Tellis and P. N. Golder Will and Vision: How latecomers grow to dom-inate markets (McGraw-Hill, 2002) and D. A. Shepherd and M. S. Shanley New Venture Strategies: Timing of entry, demand uncertainty and technological uncertainty (Sage, 1998).
Fernando Suarez provides an excellent up-to-date overview of the factors influencing technology standards in ‘Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework’
(Research Policy, 2004, 33, 271–286).
Finally there has been a recent spate of papers and books on the implications of the Internet (and of ICT more generally) for corporate market positioning strategies. On product development and market positioning, these include M. Iansiti, ‘Mastering the rapids: managing product development in turbulent environments’, California Manage-ment Review, 38 (1), Fall 1995, 37–58; D. B. Yoffie and M. A. Cusumano: ‘Judo strat-egy. The competitive dynamics of Internet time’, Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb.
1999, 71–81; M. Iansiti and A. MacCormack, ‘Developing products on internet time’, Harvard Business Review, Sept.–Oct. 1997, 108–117; The Economist, 25 May 1996,
‘Survey of the software industry’; M. A. Cusumano, Y. Mylonadis and R. S. Rosenbloom:
‘Strategic manoeuvring and mass-market dynamics: the triumph of VHS over Beta’, Business History Review, 66, Spring 1992, 51–94.
On open source software: J. B. De Long and A. H. Froomkin: ‘Beating Microsoft at its own game’, Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb. 2000, 159–164; The Economist, 12 June 1999, ‘Business: venture communism: open-source software: the next high-tech listings’, 92–94; The Economist, 11 July 1998, ‘Business: revenge of the hackers:
the software is free’, 81–84; R. Garud and A. Kumaraswary, ‘Changing competitive dynamics in networks industries. An exploration of Sun Microsystems’ open source strategy’, Strategic Management Journal, 14 (5), July 1993, 351.
References
1 Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Macmillan, London.
2 Nelson, R. (ed.) (1993) National Innovation Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
3 Cantwell, J. (1992) ‘The internationalisation of technological activity and its implications for competitiveness’, in Granstrand, O., Hakanson, L. and Sjolander, S. (eds) Technology Man-agement and International Business, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, 75–95; Patel, P.
(1995) ‘The localised production of global technology’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 141–153.
4 Patel, P. and K. Pavitt (1994) ‘Uneven (and divergent) technological accumulation amongst advanced countries: evidence and a framework of explanation’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 759–787.
5 Fagerberg, J. (1987) ‘A technology gap approach to why growth rates differ’, in Freeman, C.
(ed.), Output Measurement in Science and Technology: Essays in honour of Y. Fabian. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 33–45; Fagerberg, J. (1988) ‘International competitiveness’, Economic Journal, 98, 355–374.
6 Franko, L. (1989) ‘Global corporate competition: who’s winning, who’s losing, and the R&D factor as one reason why’, Strategic Management Journal, 10, 449–474.
7 Freeman, C. (1988) ‘Japan: a new national system of innovation?’, in Dosi, G. et al. (eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London, 330–348; Nelson, R. (ed.) (1993) National Innovation Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford; Lundvall, B.-A. (ed.) (1992) National Systems of Innovation. Pinter, London.
8 Patel, P. and K. Pavitt (1994) ‘National innovation systems: why they are important, and how they might be measured and compared’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 3, 77–95.
9 Vernon, R. (1966) ‘International investment and international trade in the product cycle’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 190–207; Dunning, J. (1980) ‘Towards an eclectic theory of international production: some empirical tests’, Journal of International Business Studies, 1, 9–31.
10 Patel, P. and K. Pavitt (1994) ‘National innovation systems: why they are important, and how they might be measured and compared’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 3, 77–95;
Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Macmillan, London.
11 Thomas, L. (1994) ‘Implicit industrial policy: the triumph of Britain and the failure of France in global pharmaceuticals’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 451–489.
12 Prais, S. (1993) ‘Economic performance and education: the nature of Britain’s deficiencies’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 84, 151–207.
13 See OECD (2000) Internet Technology Outlook, 2000: ICTs, E-commerce and the information economy. Paris, www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/stat-ana/.
14 Faulkner, W. and J. Senker (1995) Knowledge Frontiers. Clarendon Press, Oxford; Hicks, D.
(1995) ‘Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 4, 401–424; Jaffe, A. (1989)
‘Real effects of academic research’, American Economic Review, 79, 957–970; Narin, F., K.
Hamilton and D. Olivastro (1998) ‘The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science’, Research Policy, 26, 317.
15 Martin, B. (1992) ‘The position of British science’, Nature, 355, 760; and ‘Struggling to keep up appearances’, New Scientist, 7 November; Nathan, R. (1996) ‘Japan hints at a shift to the life sciences’, Nature, 383, 7.
16 Carlsson, B. and S. Jacobsson (1994) ‘Technological systems and economic policy: the dif-fusion of factory automation in Sweden’, Research Policy, 23, 235–248; Laursen, K. (1997)
‘Horizontal diversification in the Danish national system of innovation: the case of pharma-ceuticals’, Research Policy, 25, 1121.
17 Landau, R. and N. Rosenberg (1992) ‘Successful commercialisation in the chemical process industries’, in Rosenberg, N., Landau, R. and Mowery, D. (eds), Technology and the Wealth of Nations. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 73–119.
18 Albert, M. (1992) Capitalism against Capitalism. Whurr, London.
19 Fransman, M. (1995) Japan’s Computer and Communications Industry. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
20 Albach, H. (1996) ‘Global competitive strategies for scienceware products’, in Koopmann, G.
and Scharrer, H. (eds), The Economics of High Technology Competition and Co-operation in Global Markets. Nomos, Baden-Baden, 203–217.
21 The Economist (1995) ‘Dismantling Daimler-Benz’, 18 November, 99–100.
22 The Economist (1995) ‘Back on top. A survey of American business’, 16 September.
23 Gordon, P. (1996) ‘Industrial districts and the globalisation of innovation: regions and net-works in the new economic space’, in Vence-Deza, X. and Metcalfe, J. (eds), Wealth from Diversity. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 103–134; Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (1999) Funding a Revolution: Government support for computing research, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
24 Harding, R. and W. Paterson (eds) (2000) The Future of the German Economy: an end to the miracle?, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
25 See The Economist (1999) ‘The world in your pocket: a survey of telecommunications’, 9 October.
26 Mansfield, E. (1985) ‘How rapidly does new industrial technology leak out?’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 34, 217–223.
27 Camp, R. (1989) Benchmarking – the Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to Superior Performance. Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wis.
28 Altshuler, A. et al. (1984) The Future of the Automobile: The report of MIT’s international auto-mobile program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.; Womack, J., D. Jones and D. Roos (1990) The Machine that Changed the World. Macmillan, New York; Leachman, R. and D. Hodges (1996)
‘Benchmarking semiconductor manufacturing’, IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufac-turing, 9, 158–169.
29 De Meyer, A. and B. Pycke (1997) ‘Separating the fads from the facts: trends in manufactur-ing action programmes and competitive priorities from 1986 till 1996’, in Miller, J., de Meyer, A. and Nakane, J. (eds), Benchmarking Global Manufacturing: Understanding international sup-pliers, customers, and competitors. Irwin, Ill.
30 Voss, C. and K. Blackmon (1996) ‘The impact of national and parent company origin on world-class manufacturing: findings from Britain and Germany’, International Journal of
Oper-ations and Production Management, 16, 96–112; Hanson, P. and C. Voss (1993) Made in Britain. IBM Consulting, London; P. Hanson et al. (1996) Made in Europe 2. IBM Consulting, London.
31 Coopers & Lybrand (1994) Survey of Benchmarking in the UK: Executive summary. London.
32 Levin, R. et al. (1987) ‘Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783–820; Mansfield, E., M. Schwartz and S. Wagner (1981) ‘Imitation costs and patents: an empirical study’, Economic Journal, 91, 907–918.
33 Kim, L. (1993) ‘National system of industrial innovation: dynamics of capability building in Korea’, and Odagiri, H. and A. Goto (1993) ‘The Japanese system of innovation: past, present and future’, in Nelson, R. (ed.), National Innovation Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 357–383, 76–114.
34 Arundel, A., G. van de Paal and L. Soete (1995) Innovation Strategies of Europe’s Largest Indus-trial Firms (PACE Report). MERIT, University of Limbourg, Maastricht.
35 Teece, D. (1986) ‘Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, col-laboration, licensing and public policy’, Research Policy, 15, 285–305.
36 Von Hippel, E. (1987) ‘Co-operation between rivals: informal know-how training’, Research Policy, 16, 291–302.
37 Spencer, J. (2003) ‘Firms’ knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system:
empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry’, Strategic Management Journal, 24, 217–233.
38 Teece, D. (1986) ‘Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, col-laboration, licensing and public policy’, Research Policy, 15, 285–305.
39 Shapiro, C. and H. Varian (1998) Information Rules: A strategic guide to the network economy.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.
40 Hill, C. (1997) ‘Establishing a standard: competitive strategy and technological standards in winner-take-all industries’, Academy of Management Executive, 11, 7–25.
41 Rosenbloom, R. and M. Cusumano (1987) ‘Technological pioneering and competitive advan-tage: the birth of the VCR industry’, California Management Review, 24, 51–76.
42 Chesbrough, H. and D. Teece (1996) ‘When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation’, Harvard Business Review, Jan.–Feb., 65–73.
43 Suarez, F. (2004) ‘Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework’, Research Policy, 33, 271–286.
44 Chiesa, V., R. Manzini, and G. Toletti (2002) ‘Standards-setting processes: evidence from two case studies’, R&D Management, 32 (5), 431–450.
45 Soh, P. and E. Roberts (2003) ‘Networks of innovators: a longitudinal perspective’, Research Policy, 32, 1569–1588.
46 Sahay, A. and D. Riley (2003) ‘The role of resource access, market conditions, and the nature of innovation in the pursuit of standards in the new product development process’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 338–355.
47 Steffens, J. (1994) Newgames: Strategic competition in the PC revolution. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
48 Tellis, G. and P. Golder (1996) ‘First to market, first to fail? Real causes of enduring market leadership’, Sloan Management Review, Winter, 65–75; Tellis, G. and P. Golder (2002) Will and Vision: How latecomers grow to dominate markets. McGraw-Hill.
49 Lambkin, M. (1992) ‘Pioneering new markets. A comparison of market share winners and losers’, International Journal of Research on Marketing, 5–22; Robinson, W. (2002) ‘Product development strategies for established market pioneers, early followers and late entrants’, Strategic Management Journal, 23, 855–866.
50 The Economist (2000) ‘The knowledge monopolies: patent wars’, 8 April, 95–99; (1996) ‘A dose of patent medicine’, 10 February, 93–94.
51 The Economist (1999) ‘Digital rights and wrongs’, 17 July, 99–100.
52 Mazzolini, R. and R. Nelson (1998) ‘The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a con-tribution to the current debate’, Research Policy, 26, 405.
53 Bertin, G. and S. Wyatt (1988) Multinationals and Industrial Property: The control of the world’s technology. Harvester-Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
54 Baldwin, K. (1994) Innovation: The key to success in small firms. Statistics Canada, Ottawa.
55 Cooke, P. and K. Morgan (1997) The Associational Economy: Firms, regions and innovation.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
56 Patel, P. and K. Pavitt (1998) ‘The wide (and increasing) spread of technological competen-cies in the world’s largest firms: a challenge to conventional wisdom’, in Chandler, A., Hagstrom, P. and Solvell, O. (eds), The Dynamic Firm. Oxford University Press, Oxford.